Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Furnished Flats and Houses

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in order to avoid delay, he will simplify the procedure by which approval is given to arrangements made by married officers and other ranks for renting furnished flats and houses.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The present procedure for hiring furnished flats and houses normally works very well. I am, however, looking into the particular case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to see whether any improvement is possible.

Mr. Russell: Would it not be easier if, instead of a central body like my right hon. Friend's works department having to approve these arrangements, the unit concerned were empowered to do so? Would it not save a good deal of delay? Alternatively, would it not be possible for a lodging allowance of some kind to be given to married officers and airmen so that they could make their own arrangements without approval having to be obtained at all?

Mr. Ward: This is already done. An airman's marriage allowance is fixed to cover the cost of accommodation, and if there is no official married quarter for him to rent he is free to make what arrangements he likes. It is only when a house or flat is hired by the Air Ministry as an official quarter that approval becomes necessary.

Guided Missiles Site, South Uist

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many, and which, sites he considered for guided

missiles before he decided upon the Island of South Uist for that purpose; what were the characteristics of those other sites which were rejected for the purpose; and what determining factor caused him to select the Island of South Uist for that purpose.

Mr. Ward: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Vote on Account on 7th March.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister no progress to report? Does he not realise that, as a result of his selection of this site, the islanders are driven, in order to escape his clutches, to consider mass exodus to a Gaelic-speaking part of Canada, and does he not think that this is a disgraceful way in which to treat British subjects with whom he has no quarrel?

Mr. Ward: This project is an extremely important part of the arrangements which we are making for the defence of these islands, and I am quite sure that the people of South Uist are just as interested in that as anyone else. My hon. Friend made it clear in the debate the other day that, after an extensive search in all possible areas, we decided that this was the only place to which to go. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this scheme will bring many advantages to the islands as well as the disadvantages of which I am well aware.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not the advantages which are likely to be brought to the islands mean that this part of Western Scotland is far more likely to be bombed, in the same way as we bombed the German rocket ranges during the last war? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of the advantages may be that if South Uist is bombed by rockets with nuclear warheads some of those bombs may drop on Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these are advantages for the Scottish population?

Mr. Hector Hughes: London may escape.

Mr. Ward: This is a range on which guided missiles are going to be tested for training purposes, and it is of such importance that I should have thought


that the people of the Western islands would have been proud to play their part in preparing for the country's defence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Read the Scotsman

Greenham Common Airfield

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many houses adjoining Greenham Common airfield have been, or will be, purchased for use by United States; airmen and their families; and how many married quarters are to be built for them.

Mr. Ward: Apart from one house bought some time ago for the commander at this airfield, no houses have been or are to be purchased. The current plan provides for building about seventy new married quarters.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several houses adjoining Greenham Common airfield are now empty and unlikely ever to be suitable for ordinary people's use when it is proposed to build more married quarters in the same vicinity? Would it not be better, rather than abandon these existing houses, to use our available building resources to better advantage by putting the houses into a proper state for use as quarters instead of setting out to build so many new married quarters?

Mr. Ward: We have looked very carefully at twenty-three existing houses with a view to doing what my hon. Friend suggests, but it has been found that none is suitable and that the modifications which would be necessary would be far more expensive than the construction of new houses.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, before Greenham Common air base is again brought into operational use by jet bombers next autumn, he will visit Newbury to review with the mayor's liaison committee the problem of noise abatement and the further measures that can be taken to prevent avoidable hardship to local residents.

Mr. Ward: I understand that the committee is in very close touch with the base commander at Greenham Common, but if there are any points which it particularly wishes to discuss with me, I should naturally be glad to meet it

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he—as were his two predecessors—will be very welcome if he can find the opportunity to discuss the problem with the mayor and his liaison committee?

Newspaper Deliveries, Cyprus

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Air what representations he has received concerning repeated delays in the arrival of both daily and Sunday newspapers in Cyprus; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Ward: None, Sir.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware, having regard to an Answer which was given to me yesterday, that these delays occurred over a period of three to four weeks and that on some days no newspapers at all arrived? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that when troops are engaged in operations it is vital that a continuous flow of information is available, and could he see that if a nuisance of this kind occurs again some emergency arrangements are made by the Royal Air Force to get newspapers to the men?

Mr. Ward: As I understand it, the delay was caused through the temporary grounding of the Viscount aircraft. If this sort of thing happens in the future, we should, of course, always be willing to see what we could do to help at the time and in the particular circumstances, but I would not wish to hold out any hope that we should be able to divert Service aircraft to this task.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Decca Navigator

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further extensions are contemplated in the use of the Decca Navigator systems; and in what areas.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): I am informed that a chain of Decca Navigator stations in Sweden and four chains in Canada are due to come into operation this year and that terms have been agreed for the provision of equipment for two chains


in India, at Bombay and Calcutta. I understand that the Governments of a number of other countries are considering adopting the system.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that agreement was reached yesterday with India for the extension of this very useful device? Having regard to its great usefulness, especially to shipping, will the Minister do everything possible at least to facilitate extension throughout the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Neave: Yes, Sir. As my predecessor stated in reply to the hon. and learned Member on 18th July last, the Government will continue to encourage the use of these very valuable devices.

Central Africa

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decisions have been reached following the discussions between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the Central African Airways regarding the future of air transport in Central Africa.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): None, Sir. I understand that the discussions were of a routine nature between the managements of the two airline partners and related to their future operations on the trunk routes between Southern Africa and the United Kingdom. The affairs of Central African Airways are not, of course, a responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that authoritative reports have appeared that the transference of this service from B.O.A.C. to Central African Airways is being considered? Will he bear two points in mind: first, that the aircraft works in this country, such as in my own constituency, which have a magnificent floor area, are now being used as a store instead of for production; and secondly, ought we not to hold these airways as public trustees for the peoples of Africa as they move towards their independence?

Mr. Watkinson: What I said was that the affairs of Central African Airways are not the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.

London Airport (News Cinema)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to operate the news cinema, constructed at public expense, at London Airport.

Mr. Neave: Tenders will shortly be invited for the operation of the cinema under a form of management contract.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that a shocking waste has already taken place? Is it not a fact that this cinema has been complete and ready for use for many months but, owing to the allegation that no staff could, be found, it has been lying idle since last August? Would he not take urgent action to put a stop to this waste and to provide this facility?

Mr. Neave: Yes, certainly. I explained to the hon. Member, in reply to two Questions which he put on 27th March, how it was that this cinema had not been operated before, but my right hon. Friend hopes to find an exhibitor who, on a management basis, will be able to operate it profitably.

Mr. Hunter: If this building cannot be used as a cinema and there is no exhibitor willing to use it, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider allowing the social and dramatic clubs of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to use the building? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has said, it is a shame that this new building is not being used for any purpose at all.

Mr. Neave: I am well aware of the importance of improving amenities at London Airport, but I think that we ought to give the cinema a trial first.

Rhoose Airport (Television Mast)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has received against the proposal to erect a second television mast in a position covering the approaches to Rhoose Airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I received representations against the proposal from the Welsh


Advisory Council for Civil Aviation and other interested parties. In consequence, a local inquiry was held in Cardiff on 7th March, following which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave planning permission for the mast to be erected at St. Hilary Down.

Mr. Gower: In view of the suggestion that the airport may be moved farther from Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if that were done the airport would be farther from Cardiff than is any airport in Great Britain from the chief city that it serves?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a rather different question, but there are no definite proposals at the moment to move Rhoose Airport anywhere else.

Newspaper Deliveries, Middle East

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the reasons for the delay at London Airport of consignments of daily and Sunday newspapers for the Middle East; and what steps he has taken to remove the difficulties.

Mr. Neave: I understand that the only newspapers for the Middle East which have recently been delayed at London Airport were those consigned to Cyprus: the delay was due to the temporary withdrawal of B. E. A. 's Viscounts for modification. I am glad to say that these aircraft are now operating normally, and the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Braine: Oh, but it does. Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation, may I ask whether, in view of the dislocation that the withdrawal of these aircraft causes to the supply of newspapers, he could give some assurance that if a similar delay occurs in future steps might be taken to ensure an emergency airlift of newspapers to the area affected? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because newspapers are vital in a democratic society. Can my hon. Friend give some such assurance?

Mr. Neave: It is to be hoped that such an emergency will not arise again, but if it should, of course certain plans would have to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Motorists (Suburban Car Parking)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has made in his conversations with the motoring organisations and the British Transport Commission with a view to persuading motorists to park their cars at stations outside London and complete their journeys by train.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Preliminary inquiries have shown that the amount of parking space provided at most suburban stations is adequate to meet the present demand. British Railways and London Transport have, however, already announced plans to extend such facilities, and I hope that motorists will take full advantage of them and, when they can, complete their journeys by rail.

Mr. Russell: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the motoring organisations about this? Can he hold out any hope of his persuasion being successful?

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend and I have spoken to the motoring organisations about this, but what is needed is the general co-operation of all motorists at present coming into London. The organisations will do what they can, but it is the individual who must be responsible.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If that is the case, cannot some inducement be held out to the suburban motorists to use the public transport facilities and park their cars at the outlying stations? Cannot there be some form of cheap-rate season ticket with parking facilities combined?

Mr. Nugent: A good many are doing it now, and I think that motorists will be sensible enough to see the advantage of this to themselves and the rest of the country.

Traffic, London (Research Report)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has received the report on the effects of petrol rationing on traffic in London which he requested from the Road Research Laboratory; and what action he proposes to take in regard thereto.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, and I am arranging for the summary of the report to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: In thanking the Minister for the speed with which this has been prepared and looking forward to seeing his comments, may I ask whether he is fully aware that the traffic is already beginning to deteriorate to some extent as more vehicles seem to be coming back on to the London streets and that the public will be very disappointed if they find that traffic congestion returns to the conditions which they experienced before rationing? Will the Minister do everything he can to stop this busman's dream becoming the passenger's nightmare?

Mr. Watkinson: I certainly will. It is fair to say that we have learned a good deal in the last few months. The police, London Transport and all concerned have learned a lot and will now gradually start to apply it as the traffic, as the hon. Member rightly says, begins to come back. Therefore, I hope we shall not return to quite the state of congestion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chaos."]—that we had before.

Following is the summary:

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN CENTRAL LONDON DURING FUEL RATIONING

SUMMARY

In the first ten months of 1956, traffic in inner London averaged about 3½ per cent. above that in the corresponding period the year before. When the fuel shortage started in November, 1956, the traffic began to decline steadily, and at the beginning of January, 1957, was about 18 per cent. below the previous year's figure, and 21 per cent. below the figure to be expected if the earlier trend had continued. Since the beginning of February, 1957, there has been a marked rise relative to 1956, but this was probably partly due to the effect of snow in February of that year. The effect was about the same between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays, in the evening peak period (5 to 7 p.m.) and at other times.

Measurements of speed and flow on a route between Knightsbridge and the Bank in January, 1957, were compared with similar measurements made during the previous September-October. Between 9.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. the total traffic was reduced by 11 per cent., but the reduction was not the same for all classes of vehicles. Private cars were 36 per cent. fewer, goods vehicles only slightly reduced in number. and there was an increase of 15 per cent. in the total of buses and taxis. The average journey speed along the route

during the same hours was 12 m.p.h. in January, 1957, about 2½ m.p.h. taster than in the previous autumn. The amount of time spent waiting at controlled intersections fell by about 45 per cent. Although these changes were partly due to normal seasonal variation in traffic, the fuel shortage accounted for a large part of the improvement.

There were 22 per cent, fewer vehicles (28 per cent. fewer cars) parked in the streets in selected areas of inner London in January, 1957, than in September, 1955, but the number was still 27 per cent. higher than in September, 1951.

The total casualties in the Metropolitan Police District in the two months December, 1956, and January, 1957, fell by about 17 per cent. compared with the previous year.

Northern Traffic Area (Commissioners)

Mr. Blyton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many part-time members there are for the Northern Transport Traffic Commissioners for the Northern Traffic Area; how many sittings have taken place; and how many times the part-time members have been requested to adjudicate in the previous twelve months.

Mr. Nugent: There are two part-time Traffic Commissioners for the Northern Traffic Area and nine deputies who can be called upon to act in the absence of these Commissioners. In addition, there is a part-time Deputy-Chairman who acts in the absence of the whole-time Chairman.
There were 45 sittings in the past twelve months. At least one part-time Commissioner was present at each sitting; at seven of the sittings two part-time Commissioners took part. The services of three of the deputies were called upon. The Deputy-Chairman acted on two occasions.

Mr. Blyton: Can the Minister give an assurance that there is no discrimination against the part-time members in the adjudications of the Commissioners?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, certainly. The deputies are only exceptionally called in to act. As the hon. Member will notice, only three of them out of the nine were called in to act during the year. There is no discrimination whatever.

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Tests)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has made in launching the


scheme for the compulsory inspection of motor vehicles.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how soon he anticipates completing the arrangements for the compulsory inspection and testing. of motor vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to say that the associations representing firms engaged in the motor repair industry have assured me of their co-operation in principle. Discussions with representatives of the industry and of local authorities on the detailed proposals for the organisation of compulsory tests are proceeding satisfactorily. It is too early as yet to say when the arrangements will be completed and thus when compulsory tests will start.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the Bill was passed over nine months ago and that, judging by experience, the institution of compulsory testing might save a substantial number of lives, is not the Minister going rather slowly in the matter if he tells us that all that is happening is that discussions are proceeding and he can give no hope whatever that the scheme will come into operation within a reasonable period? Does he expect the scheme to start within a few months, or this year? What is he likely to do to expedite its initiation?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right lion. Gentleman did not catch exactly what I said. We have overcome one difficult problem in that the associations representing the motor repair firms have now agreed to the method of co-operation. I am not anxious to hurry this matter. What I am anxious to do is to get it right, and I shall take time to do that.

Mr. Strauss: We are all anxious to get it right, but surely it is equally desirable to hurry this matter. As was pointed out during the discussions, it may be that when the scheme is in full operation something like 500 lives a year might well be saved, judging by extensive experience of a similar scheme in America?

Mr. Watkinson: I will go forward as fast as I think is possible, bearing in mind that I want to get the right scheme.

Public Service Vehicles (Fares and Fuel Oil)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of undertakings carrying passengers in public service vehicles under licence that have increased fares in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Act, 1956, to the extent of the permitted amount, and the number that have so increased fares but less than that amount.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that this information is not available. There is no obligation on operators to report increases in fares made under the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Davies: Surely, they report the fares to the Traffic Commissioners, do they not? Apart from that, how long is the travelling public to have to carry this unfair burden of increased fares? Is it not a fact that bus services have now been restored to normal, that they have a full ration of petrol—in other words, rationing as far as they are concerned has virtually come to an end—and yet they still have to pay an extra tax which is passed on to the public? When will this cease?

Mr. Watkinson: It is clearly sot out in the relevant piece of legislation, and, of course, rationing is still in force for petrol.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that if he had accepted the recommendations of the Opposition that public service vehicles should be exempt from the increased tax, now that they are not subject to rationing, their fares could be reduced?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another matter.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the removal of restriction on the use of diesel oil for road transport, allocations of petrol to operators of petrol-driven public service vehicles are such as to place them in no worse position than operators of similar vehicles which are diesel-engined.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davies: While appreciating that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this does not confirm that those operators are now able to obtain all the fuel they require for their services and it is quite unfair that they should continue to be taxed the extra 1s. on fuel they consume—a tax which was imposed to compensate for reduced consumption of fuel? How long is this tax going on?

Mr. Osborne: Let the hon. Member wait till next week.

Mr. Watkinson: This Question refers to rationing. I ought to make it quite plain that the present position, in the use of both Derv, although it is not on coupon rationing now, and petrol, is that users must restrict themselves to the very minimum requirement necessary to maintain services.

Mr. D. Jones: Although the London buses carry notices saying that as from 1st April the whole of the London Transport Executive's normal red bus services have been restored and that the arrangements for contract carriages have been restored, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that passengers still have to pay 3d. for a 2½d. ride?

Motor Coaches (Smokers)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the inconvenience and possible danger to both passengers and staff of constant tobacco smoking in coaches, some of which travel for long distances by day and night; and whether he will give consideration to making regulations requiring the provision of coaches or parts of coaches in which smoking is prohibited, in particular in the case of long journeys.

Mr. Watkinson: There are considerable practical difficulties about the hon. Member's suggestion, and I should prefer to leave this matter to the discretion of individual coach operators, who are the best persons to judge the needs of their customers.

Mr. Hastings: But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the heaviest smokers with the foulest pipes seem to be attracted to the front of coaches, and that this causes considerable inconvenience to the drivers, particularly

on long journeys in cold weather? Will he give careful consideration to this matter?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly give consideration to it, but the pipe smokers might take a different view from that of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Gloucester—Cardiff Road (Improvements)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what improvements will be carried out during the next two years in the main Gloucester to Cardiff road; and to what extent these will include schemes for by-passing the main towns.

Mr. Nugent: We expect that twenty-one improvement schemes will be started during the next two years on the main Gloucester to Cardiff road. These do not include any by-passes.

Mr. Gower: With reference to the need for by-passes, will my hon. Friend examine carefully the inadequacy of the narrow bridge and very steep hill at Chepstow and also the extreme danger of that hill?

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend and I recently received a deputation concerning Chepstow, but I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of a by-pass there in the near future.

Kerbstones

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the average cost per mile of providing kerbstones on main roads in the country.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what his policy is towards the use of vertical kerbstones on trunk roads in rural areas.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on Wednesday, 27th March, in which I said that my policy is that vertical kerbs should not be used in rural areas except in certain particular circumstances, and that kerbing costs about £4,500 a mile of road.

Captain Pilkington: I know that my right hon. Friend has had this matter under consideration, but does he not think that there are too many rural roads where these kerbs are not really necessary? At a time when there is such urgent need for more road surfaces, does my right hon. Friend not think that these refinements should be postponed and that the men, money and materials should be used to provide a greater area of road surface?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. He is entirely right, and it is that instruction which has been sent to all local authorities.

Hyde Park Corner (Improvement Scheme)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on easing the traffic b congestion in and around Hyde Park at rush hours.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet concluded his discussions with the Minister of Works about the layout of the proposed Hyde Park Corner Road Improvement Scheme.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) on 13th February, when I said that discussions were proceeding about road improvements at certain points in and around Hyde Park.

Captain Pilkington: My right hon. Friend knows that this consideration has been going on for months and years. Can he give an indication when he will be able to pronounce on this question?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, before very long.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Has approval now been given or a decision reached by the Royal Fine Art Commission, which has had this under consideration for a very long time?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer to that is that we have now agreed with the Royal Fine Art Commission on some of the difficulties which arose over the Decimus Burton Screen and one or two other difficult architectural problems, and I think we are now making some progress.

Mr. Strauss: Although the right hon. Gentleman is not able to make an announcement today and says that he hopes to be able to do so before very long, can he say whether there is an agreement in principle reached with the Minister of Works on the sort of layout there is to be there and that he is merely delaying the announcement of it?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not quite so. The position, as I think all hon. Members know, is that the whole area of Hyde Park is the heart of the West End of London's traffic problem. Therefore, whatever we do there will have immense repercussions, and I am most anxious that what we do shall be the best possible solution. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that I have now agreed with my right hon. Friend on some of the architectural difficulties which were holding up the complete scheme. I hope, therefore, that I can now get ahead with settling some of the more technical details

Manor Way Extension, Cardiff

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects the proposed Manor Way extension at Whitchurch, Cardiff, to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: If it is necessary to build a bridge over the Cardiff—Whitchurch—Coryton branch railway, the scheme should be completed in about two years' time. If. however, the line is closed and a bridge is not required, the completion date will be about the middle of next year.

Seashore, North Cotes (Access)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement on the alternative road from North Cotes to the seashore, which has been under discussion between the parish council and his Department for some months past.

Mr. Nugent: My hon. Friend is about to publish proposals for an Order permanently stopping-up the highways which were temporarily stopped up last September, and providing for the construction of an alternative road to the shore. For the time being, cockle fishermen can use one of the stopped-up roads under a system of Air Ministry passes.

Mr. Osborne: How long does my hon. Friend think it will be before the new road is completed? Secondly, will he inquire of the Secretary of State for Air to see whether too great precautions are not being taken over the important work which is taking place on this aerodrome. thus robbing the local people of a right to go down to the foreshore?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that it will be a few months after it can be started before the new road is completed, but we will certainly do everything possible to expedite its completion. I will bring my right hon. Friend's attention to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question to see whether there is any possibility of meeting the convenience of holidaymakers there.

A19, Stockton-on-Tees (Pedestrian Crossing)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will instal a zebra crossing on road A19, Stockton-on-Tees, between the Malleable Club and Institute and Windmill Terrace.

Mr. Nugent: I will make inquiries as to the need for a crossing here and will consult the police and the borough council. I will write to the hon. Member when my investigations are complete.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the hon. Gentleman in his investigation also take into account the fact that this is a very dangerous stretch of road which has to be crossed very frequently by old-age pensioners and many school-children? Will he also take into account the views of the inhabitants of the locality?

Mr. Ellis Smith: And of the local council.

Mr. Nugent: Certainly I will consider the views of all in the locality, but the hon. Member will bear in mind that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has turned the proposal down. However, we shall take into account all the local conditions.

Property, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Acquisition)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he will complete negotiations for the acquisition of Springfield House, Talke Road,

Chesterton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, for the purpose of widening the Winchester-Preston trunk road A34.

Mr. Nugent: Negotiations to buy Springfield House have already been completed. We know the urgency of this case, and the conveyance will proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that my constituent has been informed of the compensation that he will get? That is the important point. Has he already been informed?

Mr. Nugent: I doubt if he has, but I have today sent a letter to the hon. Member, which will give him the assurance which, I think, his constituent needs, that we do definitely intend to proceed with the transaction, which will, I think, enable him to proceed to buy the alternative property.

British Transport Commission Bill (Level Crossings)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether orders proposed to be made by the Minister under Clause 43 of the British Transport Commission Bill will be submitted to Parliament; and whether they will be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Hayman: Will these orders receive the right hon. Gentleman's personal attention, or will the power of approval be delegated to a civil servant?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member and any other hon. Member interested may like to have a copy, which will shortly be published, of a special report on this very important problem. They will see clearly from it how we are trying to handle this matter and to improve the whole level-crossing system of the country.

Play Streets

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the dangers to children in streets designated as "play streets", when those streets are used by through traffic and whether he will take steps by means of the Highway Code or otherwise, to draw the attention of drivers to the fact


that it is an offence to drive a vehicle in a play street except when calling at premises in the street.

Mr. Watkinson: It is an offence under the Street Playgrounds Act, 1938, for through traffic to use a play street during the hours of prohibition. In the Traffic Signs Regulations, 1957, which came in force on 1st March, the size of the signs indicating these streets has been increased.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are play streets within a mile of this House which are consistently being used by through traffic, which is not an uncommon occurrence in the rest of the country? Would my right hon. Friend have an inquiry made of towns which have play streets to see whether or not they are being observed as play streets? Will he also consider the provision of more conspicuous signs so that motorists know where these streets are, or the use of such a device as bulging pavements at the entrance of these streets?

Mr. Watkinson: The signs are being enlarged to make them more conspicuous. I do not think that an inquiry is called for, but if the hon. Member has details of play streets which are being abused. I shall be happy to look into them.

Carriageway Markings Experiment

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is in a position to report progress on the experiment he is conducting in the regulation of traffic by markings on the carriageway.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. The new system of carriageway markings which I announced on 13th December is now virtually complete on the Portsmouth and Dover roads. It will, I believe, be of great assistance to drivers. Some motorists are still unaware of the meaning of the markings and I am arranging in conjunction with the motoring organisations for further publicity. The rule is that drivers must keep to the left of, and avoid parking within, the solid white line when it is on their side of the road.

Mr. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend give the greatest publicity to these notices? These lines have proved of great value.

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is something which could make our roads a great deal safer. I hope that motorists will give them a good and fair trial.

Parking Meters

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the institution of parking meters is being adopted in the Metropolitan Police Area; and what representations he has had against these devices.

Mr. Watkinson: A number of local authorities are now at various stages in the consideration and preparation of schemes. Since provisions for parking meters first appeared in the Road Traffic Act I have received a variety of representations about them both from interested bodies and from individuals. Local authority schemes now in preparation will allow ample opportunity for objections to be considered.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the many representations of a critical nature, does the Minister not agree that it is just as well to go very cautiously with this innovation?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree at all. These parking meter schemes are absolutely necessary for the improvement of London's traffic situation, and I am 100 per cent. behind any local authority that wants to bring one forward.

Mrs. Jeger: To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman asking local authorities to link parking meter schemes with more off-street parking facilities? Is he aware that these are diminishing rather than increasing in Central London and that this is the crux of the problem?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that experience shows in other countries that very large sums of revenue are recovered from parking meters. It is this revenue which, under the Act, must be devoted to providing for more off-street parking.

Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when, precisely, reconstruction of the roadway from Whipps Cross. Leyton, towards


Wanstead, will begin; and what alteration in traffic ways arc included in the reconstruction.

Mr. Watkinson: The Leyton Borough Council is the highway authority for this road, and I understand that it hopes to start this work early in July. The scheme includes the construction of dual 24 ft. carriageways for a distance of 430 yards from the roundabout at Whipps Cross and the improvement of the junction of Snaresbrook Road with Lea Bridge Road.

Mr. Sorensen: Although it is perfectly true that the local authority is responsible in a subordinate capacity, does not the Minister have a certain responsibility? Is it due largely to the Ministry that there has been such a protracted delay in the reconstruction of this very vital roadway?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into that matter and let the hon. Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Modernisation Programme (Contracts)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, as a result of further examination, he is able to reconsider his decision not to give a general direction to the British Transport Commission asking them to give special consideration when placing contracts in connection with the Modernisation Programme of British Railways to the needs of localities where there is present unemployment and unused production capacity.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I have examined what the hon. Lady said on 20th February, but I am afraid I can find no reason to change the reply I then gave her.

Miss Burton: As the right hon. Gentleman said he would examine what was said to him on that date, may I ask whether it is at all likely that any of this Modernisation Programme may go to Coventry, where there are skilled men who have been turned off defence work and where there are excellent facilities?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that some discussions have taken place with one firm which, if not in Coventry, is

associated with Coventry. I think the conclusions arising from them are not yet finalised. As I said on the previous occasion, it is my wish that the British Transport Commission should help whenever it can by placing orders in areas where there are unemployment difficulties.

Station Bookstalls

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive that concessions to booksellers on railway premises shall not be granted in such numbers to any one firm that a monopoly is created.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The present arrangements are considered to give a better service than would otherwise be possible, and I have no evidence that the travelling public is dissatisfied with them.

Mr. Beswick: Even if it is necessary to allow Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son to have a virtual monopoly, should there not be an obligation upon them not to exercise a political censorship over what they sell? Is it not quite intolerable that they should be in a position to deprive passengers of certain newspapers or books?

Mr. Watkinson: No monopoly in a national sense exists, because concessions are let to Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son, Messrs. Wyman and Messrs. Menzies.

Mr. Beswick: Yes, but in any given area, as the Minister knows, there is a monopoly. Does he think it right that not only should there be a monopoly but an abuse of it by having a censorship?

Automatic Train Control

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to introduce automatic train control for railway traffic passing through Welwyn Garden City.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made with the extension of automatic train control throughout the railway system of British Railways.

Mr. Watkinson: As I informed the House on 13th February, I gave my final


approval to the British Railways Automatic Train Control system on 30th November last. The British Transport Commission is now going ahead with its plans to provide the equipment as quickly as possible on all the main traffic routes, including the main line through Welwyn Garden City.

Lord Balniel: Whilst appreciating that it might not be possible to introduce this automatic control immediately at Welwyn Garden City, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is the greatest local concern about the mechanical efficiency of these signals? Can he give an assurance that the very highest standards of safety are being maintained at the station?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that I know the point my noble Friend is making, and it refers to one signal only. I do not think I ought to anticipate the report of my Chief Inspector of Railways, but I think that I can say to my noble Friend that, so far, prolonged tests and examination of the signal have not disclosed any fault.

Mr. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend urge British Railways to expedite the setting up of the system as quickly as possible, not only for humanitarian reasons. but because the very high record of safety on British Railways is of considerable commercial value and a great deal of damage is done if there arc accidents that can be avoided?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and I think that the Commission places the utmost priority on trying to get A.T.C. going as quickly as possible.

Mr. Popplewell: Would the right hon. Gentleman press the Transport Commission to fix an early date for completion of automatic train control? Is he aware that experiments have been conducted for seven to ten years, which seems a tremendously long time? Is he also aware that in the Welwyn Garden City area, which has been subjected to these tests for years, everyone was disturbed when it was learned that there was an engine running on the line which was not fitted with this automatic control? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that more engines are equipped to utilise the control where it is already in existence?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly see to that.

Mr. Usborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a year or so ago there was an accident at Sutton Cold-field, near Birmingham, and the inquiry found that the driver was driving the train a little too fast? Will the automatic control provide some kind of speedometer or some method of ensuring that the driver knows how fast he is driving the train?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put a Question on the Order Paper. This is a rather technical matter.

Leytonstone Station (Car Park Facilities)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what extra parking space is to be made available at railway stations or otherwise in the borough of Leyton.

Mr. Nugent: I understand the British Transport Commission is planning to increase the capacity of the car park at Leytonstone Station by twenty-seven car spaces. We are, of course, willing to consider any proposals by the local authority to provide additional parking facilities on or off the highway.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that reply mean that British Railways will be entirely responsible for the new parking space at Leytonstone, or will the Ministry of Transport or the local authority have some share in the responsibility, and, indeed, the fixing of fees?

Mr. Nugent: The British Transport Commission alone will be responsible for this car park.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Suez Canal

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what are the technical grounds on which Her Majesty's Government have advised British ships not to use the Suez Canal for the time being.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) on 27th March.

Mrs. Castle: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that British shipping will not be prevented from using the Suez Canal because of arguments over the payment of tolls? In trying to settle this question with Colonel Nasser, will he represent to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that the payment of tolls provision, which we insist upon, should not violate the agreement which was reached on 2nd November with the representative in Egypt?

Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to do with my Answer, which dealt with quite reasonable doubts that may still exist as to whether the Gulf of Suez is not still mined to some extent and whether the technical equipment of the Canal is yet complete.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Could my right hon. Friend say whether he has any fresh information, or when any further information will be forthcoming, as to the state of affairs regarding mines in the Gulf of Suez?

Mr. Watkinson: Mr. HammarskjÖld was asked to take up that matter with the Egyptians and we are awaiting his reply.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the fact that other ships are passing through the Canal, does the Minister seriously think that there are any technical reasons, apart from the question of the payment of dues, which prevent British ships from using the Canal?

Mr. Watkinson: What I seriously think is that the Egyptian Government in November broadcast a warning that a certain area of the Gulf of Suez was mined. We are still waiting for them to withdraw that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Middle East Operations (Despatches)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will publish General Sir Charles Keightley's despatches on the Suez operation.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): General Keightley has not yet submitted his report on this operation. I will consider the question of publication when I receive it.

Guided Missiles

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence what information was made available at the Bermuda Conference concerning the present stage of development of the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile; and when it will be available for use in Great Britain.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence when he expects that the United States guided missiles of intermediate range will be available for supply to this country.

Mr. Sandys: I cannot at present add to the information given to the House by the Prime Minister in his speech on Monday and in his replies to Questions on this subject yesterday.

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but yesterday the Prime Minister simply said that he could not add to the information given before, and so far we have had no information except an unsupported assertion that this will save us money and effort. Was anything told the Prime Minister at Bermuda about the state of development or about anything at all? Is it true that no single Thor yet exists, and if all this is true, how can it be asserted by the Prime Minister that it saves us time and money? Ought not the Minister to share what information he has with the House?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that I ought to give as long an answer as the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think we shall have occasions shortly when it will be possible to go into these matters. I do not think I could do so in an answer of this kind. However, these weapons are in an advanced stage of development, and plans have to be made a long time ahead.

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but if the Minister is now prepared to say that they are in an advanced stage, he must know how advanced. My Question asked him exactly how advanced they are? Will he now tell us what he knows about them?

Mr. Sandys: It is not our custom to give information about the exact state of development of our own weapons, and I think it would be highly improper for me to give information about the state of development of the weapons of other people.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the Minister explain to the House how he can frame any intelligible defence policy, or expect the House to criticise it, unless we have some approximate idea as to when these intermediate range ballistic missiles will be ready? Surely the Minister must know that?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions. First, how it is possible for the Government to make their plans. Well, we have a good deal of information about all this. He then asks how the House can form its opinion about these things. On matters of defence there are certain limits outside which it is not desirable to go.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that we have certain advance information about these guided missiles, and that is the cost? Is he aware that they have been criticised by prominent American admirals on the ground that each cost £ 20,000? How many of them are we going to fire off before we solve the economic crisis?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he has made with the United States Government for the testing of British guided missiles on United States rocket ranges.

Mr. Sandys: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if we are going to get guided missiles tested in the United States and then test them again on the rocket range at South Uist? Is he aware that he is going to spend about £ 12 million on South Uist, and will not this guided missile programme be an extraordinarily expensive addition to our defence costs before it is finished?

Mr. Sandys: The Bahamas range—the American range—to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring, is for long-distance ballistic rockets. There is no intention of testing weapons of that kind—

Mr. Hughes: The South Uist range.

Mr. Sandys: But the hon. Gentleman asked about the arrangements in his Question. Perhaps he remembers the Question? It referred to the range in

America, which is for testing long-distance ballistic rockets. There is no question of testing weapons of that kind in the Hebrides.

Mr. Hughes: Is there no rocket range for testing short-range rockets in America?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Charter (Review)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee appointed by the United Nations General Assembly in November, 1955, to consider the preparations for a general conference of United Nations members to review the Charter has yet reported; and whether his representative was present.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): This Committee has not yet met.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the view of the Government that recent international events have strengthened the need for a review of the Charter, and if that is so, what action are they proposing to take to expedite a meeting of this Committee?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Committee has to make a report to the next Session of the United Nations Assembly this autumn, and the Secretariat means to call a meeting in the very near future. I think he will recognise that the Secretariat has been under considerable pressure in recent weeks, but the meeting will take place shortly.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Minister what proposals are being put forward to that Committee by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government? Are we taking any part in the deliberations, and have we some idea of the way in which the Charter should be reviewed? Would he make a statement to this House about our proposals?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We are certainly proposing to take part in the meeting of that Committee and to put forward proposals, but that is a much wider question than the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Minister consider asking the Foreign Secretary to lay a White Paper on all the proposals that have been made for the revision of the Charter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will consider that.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, in the near future, initiate discussions at the United Nations for the purpose of limiting hydrogen bomb tests and eventually abolishing these tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to what was said by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend in this House on 1st April, and to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to the hon. Member for Bristol. Central (Mr. Awbery) on 26th March.

Mr. Hunter: In spite of that reply, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if lie will ask his right hon. and learned Friend, in the interests of humanity throughout the world, and despite what the Prime Minister said. to initiate discussions at the United Nations to secure agreement on the limitation and eventual abolition of hydrogen bomb tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great concern in this matter, but there really is not any need for any initiative on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, in that the Disarmament Sub-Committee is meeting at this moment, and discussion on this particular subject forms a very important part of its work.

Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend now state what is the policy of the Labour Party on this matter?

Mr. Younger: In view of the Minister of State's suggestion that there is no need for an initiative, can he tell us quite positively that proposals have in fact been put forward by the Government within this Sub-Committee and that they are at present being considered, or is he merely giving careful consideration to other people's suggestions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Question asks whether the Government will initiate discussions in the United Nations. I said

that there is no need to initiate these discussions because discussions in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee are at this moment taking place.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee for the limitation and control of nuclear tests.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee are private and I cannot say what proposals have been or may be put forward by Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members will, however, be aware that among proposals likely to be considered are the comprehensive Anglo-French plan of 1956 and the new United States disarmament proposals, both of which include provision for the limitation of tests. There is also the resolution by Canada. Norway and Japan on registration of tests. The statements in the Bermuda communiqué on registration and limited observation of tests indicate that we are likely to contribute ideas in support of this resolution. We are awaiting Soviet reactions to various questions put to them.

Mr. Henderson: Is not it a fact that during the debate on Monday the Foreign Secretary gave certain information to the House, admittedly on the basis of questions, which suggested that these were the substance of proposals that the Government have put to the Disarmament Sub-Committee? Why cannot we have that information put in a positive form, even though it only confirms the Foreign Secretary's statement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that if we are to have confidential discussions —and there are certain advantages in having these discussions in private—it really would not be suitable to give exact details of all the statements that were being made in that Sub-Committee.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Were we right in understanding the Prime Minister to mean on Monday that while we might consider the registration of tests in advance and restricted international observation of


tests, we were not proposing to accept any limitation on the number or power of the tests?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that is exactly what the Prime Minister said. It is broadly what he said, but I repeat that it really is impossible to give exact details in this House of the statements we are putting to the Soviet representatives in the Sub-committee which is meeting at this very moment.

Gaza Strip and Gulf of Aqaba (Emergency Force)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct our representative at the United Nations to propose to the Security Council that each of the permanent members should provide a contingent of equal strength to reinforce the United Nations Force now in the Gaza Strip and in the area near the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the obvious need to reinforce the United Nations Force in the Gaza Strip if it is to be of any use at all, would not my right hon. Friend reconsider this, as a plan of that kind would bring it back under the control of the Security Council where it was meant to be originally under the Charter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, but the problem is that this Force was constituted under a Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and that Resolution excluded contingents from the permanent members of the Security Council. It is quite possible under the General Assembly's Resolution for the United Nations Emergency Force to receive further reinforcements if that is considered necessary.

Mr. Paget: Have the Government considered sending a cruiser on a courtesy visit to Eilat? Might not it, first, assert a right and, secondly, be a suitable complement to a gallant ally in the late "nearly" war?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not really think that the hon. and learned Member's question is a very helpful one.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION ON FERTILISERS)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the action taken by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe about the Recommendation of the Consultative Assembly on fertilisers.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This Recommendation was considered by the Ministers' Deputies at their meeting on 7th March. They decided to transmit it to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation for an opinion and it will be considered again when that has been obtained.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he appreciate that it is important, if we are to make the Consultative Assembly work, that we should get an early and effective action on the Recommendations that it passes? Will he see that this is followed through energetically?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is certainly our intention. When we have this report from the O.E.E.C. I hope that there will be a discussion with the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C. liaison committee on this Recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (OIL PIPELINE)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Israel in regard to the construction of an oil pipeline from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: None, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the very urgent need to find every possible alternative route for bringing oil to Western Europe, will not my right hon. Friend go into this matter with the other Western European nations and the United States, the more so in view of the refinery standing almost idle at Haifa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think my hon. Friend knows that there are considerable difficulties in this proposal and it is something for the Government of Israel to


initiate—not Her Majesty's Government in this country.

Mr. Dugdale: Does that answer mean that no request for any financial assistance has been received from the Israeli Government? Would not it be very much cheaper to build such a line than to build the proposed pipeline through Turkey?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No request has been received. The second supplementary of the right hon. Gentleman is a very much wider question and I do not think I ought to comment on it now.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the difficulties he mentioned are of a political or mechanical naure? Secondly, can he say whether it is the Government's policy to restrain any private company or individual who sought to perform such an operation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Government would not try to restrain any private company; but what we are asked is whether there have been consultations between the Israeli Government and Her Majesty's Government on this particular project. There have been no such consultations.

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the political situation in the Middle East, would not it be much wiser to seek other ways for a pipeline than this one mentioned in the Question, particularly the one through Turkey?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. That is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Government have abandoned their decision to work for the limitation of hydrogen-bomb tests outside the context of a disarmament convention.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The policy of Her Majesty's Government on limitation of tests was explained by the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the

Foreign Secretary in the House on 1st April and by the Prime Minister again on 2nd April.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these statements are really not the last word on the subject? Is not the crux of this matter whether the Government are prepared to go ahead with proposals for the abolition or limitation of hydrogen bomb tests quite separately from any other section of a disarmament agreement? Is not it clear from the earlier Answers that no such initiative is being taken by the Government and that the purpose of keeping these discussions confidential in the Disarmament Sub-Committee seems to be to obscure the fact that the Government are not keeping their promise?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not accept any of the statements of the hon. Lady. This is not the last word. We do not think it is the last word on the subject, but I wish we could get it understood in this House that there is quite a separate case for limitation and for abolition of tests. They are two quite different subjects.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Bill to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual contributions towards the House of Commons Members' Fund and to extend the powers of investment of the trustees of that Fund, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler and Mr. J. Enoch Powell; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Electricity Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

New Clause —(SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY TO RAILWAYS.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Generating Board to provide in England and Wales, and it shall be the duty of the Scottish Electricity Boards to provide in their respective Districts, a supply of electricity to meet the requirements for haulage or traction of railway undertakers.

(2) A supply of electricity to railway undertakers may be provided—

(a) in England or Wales by the South of Scotland Board with the approval of the Generating Board;
(b) in the South of Scotland District by the Generating Board with the approval of the South of Scotland Board; or
(c) in the District of either of the Scottish Electricity Boards by the other of them, with the approval of the Board in whose District the supply is provided.

(3) An Area Board shall no, except with the approval of the Generating Board, supply electricity to railway undertakers for purposes of haulage or traction.

(4) Nothing in the last preceding subsection shall be construed as authorising an Area Board to supply electricity to railway undertakers in the area of another Area Board. or in the District of a Scottish Electricity Board, except with the agreement of that Board or an authorisation given by the Electricity Council or the Secretary of State (in accordance with the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of section one of the principal Act), as well as the approval of the Generating Board -as required by the last preceding subsection.

(5) The terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction shall be such as may be agreed between the Board and the undertakers or. in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the appropriate Ministers:
Provided that any terms and conditions so agreed or determined shall be such as, in the opinion of the Board, or of the appropriate Ministers, as the case may be. will not cause a financial loss to result to the Board from the provision of the supply.

(6) Where the terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for purposes of haulage or traction are determined by the appropriate Ministers, that determination—

(a)shall not extend to the terms and conditions on which any electricity so supplied may be used by the undertakers for other purposes, and

(b) shall not he taken to preclude the Board and the undertakers from subsequently varying the terms and conditions so determined by agreement between them

(7) An Electricity Board may enter into an agreement with any railway undertakers, to whom the Board are to supply electricity for purposes of haulage or traction. whereby any of that electricity may be used by the undertakers for other purposes, on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement.

(8) Without prejudice to any other enactment providing for the protection of telegraphic lines belonging to or used by the Postmaster General, any electricity supplied under this section to any railway undertakers shall be used in such manner as not to cause. or to be likely to cause, any interference (whether by induction or otherwise) with any such telegraphic line, or with telegraphic communication by means of any such line.

(9) In this section "the appropriate Ministers", in relation to Electricity Boards in England and Wales. means the Minister and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation acting jointly. and, in relation to Scottish Electricity Boards, means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation acting jointly, and "telegraphic line" has the same meaning as in the Telegraph Act. 1878.—[Mr. Maudling]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.32 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On a point of order. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was impossible until 13· 55 hours today to get the bound copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of this Bill? This has put hon. Members on both sides of the House to great inconvenience, and I should like to draw it especially to your attention, Mr. Speaker, so that there shall not be a repetition and that on the Report stage of Bills in future hon. Members may have available to them a bound copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: I have taken note of what the hon. Member said and I will inquire into the matter.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps I should explain why the Clause appears for the first time on Report and did not appear in Committee. One normally tries to avoid introducing on Report new issues which have not been considered in Committee, but I think it will be regarded as excusable on this occasion that we did not


do so. In fact, the Clause makes very little substantial difference to the present system, but it was not possible to introduce it earlier because discussions were taking place between the interested parties—the electricity authorities and the railway authorities —and these were not concluded in time for us to table the Clause for the Committee.
The Clause deals with the provision of electric power for haulage and traction on the railways, a problem which at present is dealt with by Section 49 of the principal Act. There are two reasons for changing the existing statutory provisions. The first is that Section 49 needs some amendment to bring its provisions into line with the changed constitution of the electricity industry as a whole. The amendments to Section 49 are consequential upon the effects which the Bill has on the organisation of the industry.
The second reason for introducing these provisions is that Section 49 of the principal Act declared that the Ministers responsible should lay down regulations determining the terms and conditions under which power is supplied by the nationalised electricity authorities to the railways. In practice, it has been found impossible to draw up suitable regulations for the reason, I am advised, that if the regulations were detailed enough to have practical effect they might be ultra vires whereas if they were broad enough to be intra vires they would do little more than say that the Minister approved the agreement reached between the parties themselves.
We are now approaching the problem in a slightly different fashion. Perhaps I can explain the purpose of the new Clause fairly briefly. It provides that the Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Boards should, in the first place, supply electricity to the railway undertakers in their own areas.
Subsection (1) provides that the Generating Board in England and Wales and the Scottish Electricity Boards in their areas of Scotland are responsible for supplying electricity to the railway undertakers. Subsection (2) provides that by agreement between them the supply of electricity can cross over the Border, which is obviously common sense; the Generating Board can supply electricity for traction to railways in Scotland in agreement with the Scottish Boards and vice versa.
Subsections (3) and (4) provide that in certain circumstances the area boards shall be able to provide this power to a railways undertaker. This power on the part, of area boards is circumscribed in two ways. In the first place, they cannot do it without the express approval of the Generating Board; in this case it is not merely consultation but it requires the approval of the Generating Board. Secondly, no area board may overlap its own area other than by agreement with the other authority concerned or, as provided in subsection (4), with an authorisation given by the Electricity Council or the Secretary of State.
Subsection (5) is perhaps the main operative section. In place of regulations laid down under the principal Act it provides that the terms and conditions on which electricity shall be supplied to the railways shall be agreed between the two parties concerned and only in default of agreement shall the appropriate Ministers —who are defined in subsection (9)—give a determination. It also lays down, as was laid down in the principal Act in 1947, that any such terms and conditions, whether agreed or determined, shall be such as shall not cause a financial loss to result to the board. In other words, boards shall not be called upon either by agreement or by determination to provide an electricity supply to the railway undertakings at a loss.
Subsection (6) says that where the Minister makes a determination this shall not apply to the terms and conditions upon which electricity supplied to the railways is used for purposes other than haulage and traction. Subsection (7) empowers the electricity boards to enter into an agreement with railway undertakers on the terms and conditions on which electricity supplied by an electricity board may be used by the railway undertakers for purposes other than haulage and traction.
Subsection (8) substantially repeats the provisions of Section 49 of the 1947 Act protecting the equipment of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General from being interfered with by activities of railways undertakers with their electricity supply. Subsection (9) defines the appropriate Minister, which in this case means the Minister and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation acting jointly and


in the case of Scotland means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation acting jointly.
That is the purpose of the new Clause. It is rather long and complicated, but its effect is relatively simple and I hope that it will commend itself to the House. The two basic purposes are, first, to bring the provisions of Section 49 of the principal Act into line with the changes in the constitution of the industry which the Bill makes effective; and, secondly, to provide terms upon which electricity supplied for the purposes of railway haulage and traction shall be subject not to Ministerial regulation but to agreement between the parties concerned and to a Ministerial determination only in the absence of agreement between them.

Mr. Hobson: I find myself more or less in agreement with the new Clause, with one possible exception about subsection (6. a), to which I shall come in a few moments. The Clause is obviously the result of a promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power in Committee, when he said that he would study the comments of my right hon. Friends on the fact that, as the Bill stood in Committee, it would have been possible, under the new powers of the area boards to generate electricity, for the area boards themselves to supply electricity to the British Transport Commission for haulage purposes. We pointed out that that was very unsatisfactory, for reasons with which I do not wish to weary the House, because they were amply given in Committee.
The Clause seeks to alter that position, because, when the small power stations are built—if they are, which is problematical—the area boards will not be able to supply electrical energy to the railways without the consent of the Generating Board. That is a welcome step and I can see no objection to it. I welcome the fact that the Minister himself will have the final power to arbitrate between the Generating Board and the Transport Commission in any dispute which may arise.
Various criticisms have to be made about subsection (6, a). I cannot see why the Transport Commission, which will buy in bulk millions of kilowatts, because of the new electrification programmes for the main lines, should not

be able to put in appropriate transformers for the works at Crewe, Derby. or Darlington. Why should not the same tariff apply? Why has there to be a special agreement? Why should the Commission have to go to the trouble of having separate agreements, presumably with the area boards, for electricity supplies for its workshops? That seems to be entirely wrong. It is carping, it is mean, it is niggardly. What is the point?
Once a bulk tariff has been agreed between the Generating Board and the Transport Commission, I should have thought that it would not have been found necessary to have separate agreements with the various area boards. That will give the Board power to make profit on two separate occasions. I am sure that the Board will welcome that, but I do not see why we should saddle a public utility, or, indeed, a private firm if it has to buy in bulk, as the Commission has, with separate agreements so that the Board can make two sets of profit. I hope that the Paymaster-General will have something to say about subsection (6, a), which seems to be entirely wrong.
It is also wrong according to practice and precedent. Let us see what happens at present and let us take the example of London Transport. I have a little experience of London Transport's generating stations. London Transport has three stations generating electricity for London Transport underground railways and it also supplies electricity for the workshops at Neasden and elsewhere. It does not lose by having to buy electricity from the London Electricity Board to power workshops. That arrangement is not being forced upon London Transport. Why are the Government seeking to insert this provision? Insufficient thought has been given to this matter, because it logically follows that the main line railways cannot be forced to have conditions worse than those granted to London Transport. However, with that reservation, I support the new Clause.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I rise only to ask for some information about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, setting up the Hydro-Electric Board, gave it a special position and


ordered it to give certain priorities to local inhabitants of the North of Scotland and to do things other than supply electricity, in short, to help to develop the North of Scotland. As last year was very dry, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had to buy an enormous amount of current from the South. If it is to have the duty, which subsection (1) of the new Clause imposes, of providing a supply of electricity for the railways, in addition to its priority duties, will the safeguards in the 1943 Act be enough?
It is, of course, true that none of these supply arrangements can be agreed without agreement between the Board and the railway undertaking, with the additional agreement of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I suppose that the safeguard is the agreement of the Secretary of State. There is not a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench at present. but in spite of that, I ask the Paymaster-General to speak up for Scotland and to assure me, as representing one of the constituencies served by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, that that priority in the 1943 Act for the benefit of local inhabitants will come before any duty under subsection (1) of the new Clause.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Subsection (8) of the Clause says:
… any electricity supplied under this section to any railway undertakers shall be used in such manner as not to cause, or to be likely to cause, any interference (whether by induction or otherwise) with any such telegraphic line, or with telegraphic communication by means of any such line.
That subsection is obviously for the protection of the Postmaster-General. Is the Paymaster-General aware that these electricity lines can also cause an enormous amount of interference with television reception? In my constituency there have been many complaints of that sort which have been proved and the area board has gone to considerable trouble to put the matter right. I do not know whether it is feasible to include in the new Clause some such protection for the public.

Mr. Maudling: By leave of the House, the point raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) goes far beyond the purposes of the Clause, which deals solely with

the supply of electric power to the railways. It was, no doubt, a very interesting point, but it did not come within the scope of the Clause
I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) that the Clause makes no difference to the duties or privileges of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or other Scottish boards. It merely follows the principles of Section 49 of the main Act as amended by the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954. The duty still remains to provide electricity for railway haulage purposes in the area and the boards are entitled to bargain with their neighbours to buy electricity, if they wish to do so.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) should have raised the point about subsection (6, a), because in this matter we are completely following the Act of 1947, which provided, and, I think, rightly, that when there are special provisions for the supply of electricity to the railways for haulage purposes that special provision should not extend to other purposes. I see no reason why it should. I do not see why for other purposes the railways should not get their electricity by agreement with the supplies in the same way as any other consumer of electricity does.

Mr. Hobson: Other suppliers would not have to get two separate sets of agreements for the same works and the right hon. Gentleman should not insist on separate agreements for the railways.

Mr. Maudling: There is no need to have separate agreements. That is exactly the point. The Clause says that this shall be done primarily by agreement between the electricity and the railway people. That part of the 1947 Act from which we are departing says that regulations shall be made by the Minister to deal with electricity supply for haulage or traction and that electricity for other purposes shall be supplied by agreement.
We are saying that there shall be agreement between the two parties about all electricity supply and only when there is disagreement shall the Minister come into it. When that happens, which, I hope, will not be very often, any Ministerial settlement of the dispute shall apply solely to the electricity supplied to the


railways for traction and haulage, and for other electricity the parties shall, as now, reach agreement in the normal course, as do other consumers.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I think I can say that, generally speaking, hon. Members on this side of the House welcome the Clause. It seems to be the only way of getting over the difficulty caused by the fact that Regulations have not been made, as was required under the principal Act, either by the present Government or by the previous Administration. It may be that at certain stages it was not possible to make them, or the matter may have been overlooked. Something of that kind must have happened.
The right hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic to suppose that disagreements will not arise as between the boards and the railway undertakings. We are now facing a tremendous programme of railway electrification, quite rightly, and the electricity boards, the Generating Board and, conceivably, under certain circumstances, area boards will be asked to supply electricity in large quantities to transport undertakings. I can hardly imagine that disagreements as to the exact terms, conditions and prices will not arise from time to time.
That raises an interesting issue. The Clause says that in the event of a disagreement between electricity undertakings and railway undertakings it is to be left to the appropriate Ministers to determine the issue. The Ministers concerned are the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.

Mr. William Ross: And the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Palmer: Oh, yes, I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is noticeable that in the event of the Ministers or the Government making the determination there is a proviso
that any terms and conditions so agreed or determined shall be such as, in the opinion of the Board, or of the appropriate Ministers, as the case may be, will not cause a financial loss to result to the Board from the provision of the supply.
There is no suggestion that it should show a profit to the electricity board. In such circumstances the electricity board is obliged to supply the railway under-

takings in such a way that there will be no financial loss to the board. I suggest that it is not quite so open an arrangement—perhaps unavoidably so—as the earlier one, under which regulations which were subject to scrutiny had to be made, because it is just possible that it might suit a Government to provide, in a rather under-cover way, a subsidy to the railway undertakings from the boards.
It is laid down that the arrangements shall be such that there shall be no financial loss to the board, and if the reference is to an electricity board I wonder whether that is a possibility. If I am wrong in that suspicion, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain the matter to us.

Sir Frank Soskice: I should like to put a point to the Paymaster-General.

Mr. John Mackie: This is very unusual.

Sir F. Soskice: It may be unusual, but I have not heard that the Chair is adversely disposed to me at the moment.
I want to ask a question about the drafting of sub-section (6), arising out of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson), because I do not think that the intention is very clear. Subsection (6) relates to the case
Where the terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied by an Electricity Board to any railway undertakers for purposes of haulage or traction are determined by the appropriate Ministers…
That is to say, it relates to the case where the Ministers have made a determination relating to the conditions upon which electricity is to be supplied for the purposes of haulage or traction. It contemplates that the Ministers shall determine what are to be the conditions upon which, for those specific purposes, namely, haulage and traction, electricity is to be supplied to a railway undertaker.
Paragraph (a) provides that in that case, that is to say, where there has been a determination of conditions relating to the user for haulage or traction, the determination is not to extend to something else. It is not to extend to the conditions upon which electricity is to be used for other purposes.
I cannot understand the apparent dichotomy. The Clause starts by saying that where there has been a determination as to the conditions upon which electricity is to he used for haulage or traction—and, therefore, upon the assumption that the determination goes no further than dealing with the user for haulage or traction—it is not to extend to other purposes. Ex hypothesi, if it extends only to haulage or traction purposes it will not extend to other purposes.
I submit, in all seriousness, in spite of the protests which I am sorry to have occasioned, that there is some ambiguity in the drafting. We do not want ambiguity to remain in this useful Clause. It is difficult to determine what is meant. I have looked at Section 49 of the 1947 Act, but that Section is in quite different terms and does not give rise to this ambiguity. I do not know what the Government mean by this paragraph. What is the point of saying that when the Ministers have determined the conditions relating to one user, that determination is not to relate to the user for some other purpose? If it relates to only one user, in the very nature of things it does not extend to something else.
I am quite sure that some very useful purpose is wrapped up in the very ambiguous language, and I am sure that the House would be glad to know what purpose it is intended to fulfil. It would be still more useful if it were discernible, and if the Minister can reveal its purpose to us i shall be grateful. I gave him the opportunity of receiving some spiritual sustenance from his advisers, and it looked as though that sustenance was being fed to him. If he can explain some of this ambiguous and tergiversational language to us, we may be ready to accept the Clause because, subject to that defect, I think that my hon. Friends feel that the Clause would be a useful addition to the Bill.

Mr. Maudling: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I think that the provisions of the 1947 Act, which was a Measure introduced by hon. Members opposite, was very sound in regard to this matter. Hon. Members opposite seem to be somewhat critical of us for attempting to follow those provisions. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) criticised the phrase:
 will not cause a financial loss.

That is exactly parallel to the phrase "avoid financial loss" in section 49 (2) of the 1947 Act, which, I believe, was introduced by way of an Amendment moved by the then Conservative Opposition.

Sir F. Soskice: I should like to reinforce what I have said. I have studied Section 49, and if the Minister had been about to refer to the difficulty which perplexes me, I would point out that I could not find a solution in the language of that Act, which does not seem to me to be parallel.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I was dealing at that moment with the point put by the hon. Member for Cleveland about financial losses. This is an exact copy of the 1947 Act provision which was introduced by the Conservative Opposition at the time, and accepted by the then Government, to prevent the subsidisation of the railways by the electricity boards. It is being continued, and, I think, rightly so.
I can best explain the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this way. Clearly. electricity supplies to the railway companies may be used either for haulage and traction or for other purposes such as lighting hotels, or to provide heating, or something like that. One would normally think that for whatever purpose the electricity was used, the companies would pay on the same basis.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: That is not the case.

Mr. Maudling: That normally would be the thing, but in the case of the railways a different principle was introduced by the 1947 Act which distinguished between electricity supplied for the purposes of haulage or traction and electricity supplied for other purposes, because subsection (2) deals with haulage or traction purposes and lays down that there shall be regulations made by the Minister.
Subsection (3) states:
Where electricity is supplied by an electricity board to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, the board may enter into an agreement with the railway undertakers for the use of that supply, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed "—
there is no word of regulations, they can be agreed—
for any other purposes for which electricity may he required by the railway undertakers,


Therefore, we have in the Act of 1947 the position that electricity is being supplied by the electricity boards to the railway companies; and in so far as it is supplied for the purposes of haulage and traction, the price and the terms and conditions are subject to Ministerial regulation under subsection (2). But in so far as it is used for other purposes, it falls under subsection (3) and, there, the terms and conditions are subject to agreement and not to Ministerial interference.
In our new Clause we are maintaining the same distinction but we substitute "agreement" in the first place and "Ministerial determination" in the second, for the provision for regulations made in subsection (2), and the provision in subsection (3) that where the electricity supplied is used for other purposes, the terms and conditions on which it is obtained should be a matter of agreement and not a matter of regulation at all, as it would have been under the 1947 Act.
I think that we are clearly following the principle and distinction made in Section 49 of the principal Act. I hope that I have succeeded in persuading hon. Gentleman opposite that this is a sensible and useful Clause.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause.—(MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR RESELLING RLECTRICITYSUPPLIED BY ELECTRICITY BOARDS.)

(1) An Area Board, or either of the Scottish Electricity Boards, may publish a notice fixing maximum charges in consideration of which electricity supplied by the Board may be resold by persons to whom it is so supplied, or by any class of such persons specified in the notice.

(2) Any notice under this section shall be published in such manner as in the opinion of the Board will secure adequate publicity for it; and the maximum charges fixed by any such notice may be varied by a subsequent notice published by the Board in accordance with this subsection.

(3) Different maximum charges may be fixed by a Board under this section for different classes of cases, whether by reference to different parts of the area or District of the Board or to different tariffs under which electricity is supplied by the Board or to any other relevant circumstances.

(4) If any person, in consideration of the resale of any electricity supplied by an Area

Board or Scottish Electricity Board, in circumstances to which a notice published by the Board under this section applies, requires the payment of charges exceeding the maximum charges applicable thereto in accordance with the notice, the amount of the excess shall be recoverable by the person to whom the electricity is resold.

(5) So much of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, as incorporated with the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, as provides for a penalty to be imposed on persons who supply persons with electricity supplied to them shall cease to have effect —[Mr. Maudling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This clause deals with the maximum charges for reselling electricity supplied by the electricity boards and it is brought forward by the Government in pursuance of an undertaking given during the Committee stage discussions, when my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) drew attention to a somewhat similar provision in the Gas Act. He said that there were abuses in the reselling of electricity, especially on the domestic tariff, and suggested that we should have a similar provision for the electricity boards.
We now propose that the electricity boards should have the power to fix maximum charges at which electricity may be resold and that they may exercise that power in such a way as to have different maximum charges for different types of consumers. I should remind the House that the complaints of overcharging on resale which have come to light have not been received from all area boards, but only from certain boards, particularly in the north-west and in the south-east of the country and London. Those are the three areas where the complaints have been most notable. We feel, therefore, that it is unnecessary to have a provision which obliges every board to have maximum charges for resale or to require any board which is empowered to fix maximum charges to fix them for all types of consumer, because it is mainly domestic consumers who are concerned.
If I may briefly describe the new Clause, subsection (1) enables the board, merely by the publication of a notice, to state the maximum resale charges, and, as I say, these charges apply either to


all persons supplied by the board or to any class of such person. Subsection (2) requires notice to be published in a manner which the board considers will secure adequate publicity for it and the maximum charges which it fixes may be varied by a subsequent notice. Subsection (3) refers to different maximum charges for different classes of user whether by reference to the locality where they occur or to other relevant circumstances.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: May I ask what my hon. and learned Friend means by "adequate publicity"?

Mr. Renton: That will be a matter for the board to decide in the light of circumstances. We do not consider that is a matter for which we should legislate in detail in a Statute.
Subsection (4) says that the amount of the excess charge, if any, which is obtained by, say, a landlord from a tenant, may be recovered in a court of law by the person who has paid the excess charge. Although I am advised that it is not necessary to put it into the Bill, it also follows that supposing a landlord should sue a tenant for charges which are in excess of the maximum charges, it would be a good defence for the tenant to say that they were in excess. So there is a sanction both ways.
Subsection (5) points out that Section 18 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, as incorporated with the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, or so much of it as provides for a penalty to be imposed on persons who resell, shall cease to have effect. Although it was not illegal up to the present for people who bought electricity from area boards to resell that electricity, they did incur a penalty by doing so, a penalty of £ 5 for the offence and 40s. for every day the offence continued. That, of course, is an obsolete piece of legislation which we propose should be cleared out of the way by not applying it to these electricity board sales.
With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Alfred Robens: We are obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing this new Clause before the House. It is a concession which he promised us when we were discussing the

matter during the Committee stage. Subject to what may be said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), it seems to me that this meets the case raised both by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and myself.
I am a little uncertain about whether the protection to the tenant is good enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably recall that I produced a case which, I admit, was an outstanding case—in fact, one which had gone to the North-Western Consumers' Council—in which the bill for electricity supplied to particular premises amounted to £ 7 17s. The landlord recharged for that electricity to various tenants and received £ 37 5s. 10d.
I think that that probably was an exceptional case, but it is true, particularly in London where there are so many houses divided up into separate tenancies, that there are many cases where overcharging of one kind and another occurs. I recognise that the landlord possibly has meter rent to pay and something in respect of wiring and matters of that kind. I do not take the view that he should charge his tenants exactly the same amount as the electricity board charges him for the supply. His additional charges obviously must be met.
The case I referred to was one of blatant overcharge and could not be justified in any circumstances. If a tenant is overcharged in that way, it is difficult for him to take his case to court to get the money back. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport knows about these matters very much better than I do, but I suppose that the court procedure would be costly or inconvenient, and, in any case, difficult for the ordinary citizen, who, generally, has no desire to go to a solicitor or to incur expenses by going to court, with all the problems and inconveniences that that would mean. The ordinary individual is occupied with doing his work from early morning until reasonably late at night. His wife usually is also unwilling to get herself involved in these proceedings.
Is this the only way in which people who overcharge for electricity can be dealt with? Could not the onus of taking action be put upon the board which supplies the electricity? Could it not protect the consumer of whom I am speaking, the


person living with his family in a few rooms in a large house? Would it not be sufficient for this consumer to say to his electricity board, "This is the bill that I have received from my landlord. On the basis of the unit charge it is obviously greater than it ought to be", and could not the board then take action to protect the consumer? Is that course too difficult? Would it involve the board in too much expense? We are trying to protect the consumer who is exploited by an unscrupulous landlord. I am not sure that the consumer can protect himself.
I am thinking of millions of very ordinary people. We are saying to them, "If you are overcharged you can go to the court and claim all these overcharges. I do not think that the average person wants to go to court and go through all the legal process, but instinctively holds back. Therefore, the proposed new Clause does not provide adequate protection. This is obviously a legal matter and there may be legal arguments about it. I do not profess to have any experience of that sort. All I am concerned about is the blatant overcharging by unscrupulous landlords.
There has been a very large influx of Jamaicans and other people into the country. These are the sort of tenant who will be exploited by people who take large houses and overcharge in every possible way, depending on their tenants' ignorance of the law. We should protect consumers by a body more powerful than an individual who goes to court. That would be the right way to do it. I say this subject to the opinions of those who are well versed in the law and know whether my suggestions are practicable.
Will the Minister see that the consultative councils are made well aware of their duty to protect the consumers of electricity? They should not necessarily wait for consumers to complain. Many of them are aware of the practices that go on, and it would not be unreasonable for them to ask the area boards to check what is happening in the case of resale in some of the houses which have been turned into apartments. The boards and the consultative councils should be energetic about this and take upon themselves the responsibility of seeing that protection is given in these matters. They

should make use of the powers which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the boards for the protection of the tenant and they should see that the powers are efficiently exercised.
4.15 p.m.
I conclude as I began. The average person is not likely to be advantaged very much by the fact that he can go to court to recover an overcharge. Suppose that the excess is only £ 1. Is it worth going to court to recover it? Who is to pay the court costs and the solicitors. to recover that £ 1? Could not a system be devised for the consultative councils or the boards to take action on behalf of consumers who are being exploited? I leave that point with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that some of my right hon. and learned Friends will deal with the legal points that I have raised, but I hope that we have the principle right: it is protection of the consumer. That is what we are anxious to secure.

Mr. S. Storey: As I am responsible for instigating the action which was taken in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroc (Mr. Fort) on behalf of the consultative councils, which has led to this new Clause appearing on the Notice Paper, I thank my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for placing the proposed new Clause before us.
The need for the Clause was made out fully in Committee and was acknowledged by the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall, therefore, not take up the time of the House by dealing with it. The consultative council for the north-west area appreciates the action taken by the Government. This is probably the answer to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who thought that consultative councils should be active in this matter. It is entirely because of the action taken by the North-Western Electricity Consultative Council that anything has been done.
I hope that the proposed new Clause will be the means of dealing with the kind of landlord whom no hon. Member on either side of the House can defend.

Mr. William Warbey: We are glad that the Government are providing some form of protection for the


consumer against exploitation, but we are not satisfied that they are doing enough to meet all the possibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred to certain defects; I want to call attention to another, which is that the Clause is only permissive and not obligatory. I believe that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) desired to make it obligatory in the Amendment which he moved in Committee.
In justifying the drafting of the proposed new Clause and its departure from the obligatory principle, the Minister tried to say that this matter affected only a few areas. In Committee, he at first suggested, if I remember rightly, that complaints had come only from one area board, the North-Western Electricity Board, but he has since conceded that complaints have come from other areas, particularly the south-east area and the London area.
I would be extremely surprised if there were any areas in which this type of abuse is not practised. It would be surprising if the type of morality which permits this kind of exploitation were confined to a few areas. If the general experience of hon. Members in their constituencies were brought together, I am sure that many examples would be found to show that the practice extends widely over the country.
Nor is this abuse confined to the landlords of private dwelling-houses. It is a form of exploitation which is also practised by the landlords of public hotels. All hon. Members have to travel about the country in the exercise of their Parliamentary and political duties and have the experience—pleasant or otherwise—of having to stay at a number of hotels.
I have stayed at a number of hotels in the Midlands and elsewhere, outside the areas covered by the boards which were referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, where I sought to obtain heating for my bedroom by putting coins into a slot meter. I have been astonished at the variety of coins one needs to have at one's disposal and the amount of electricity supplied in return for any given coin. The slot meters vary from I d. to 6d. or Is. and the quantity of electricity delivered in return for a coin also varies very considerably.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the hon. Member neglecting to observe that a part of the cost charged in the form of the coin put into the meter is specifically for the purpose of reimbursing the owner of the appliance for providing that service and a part of it is in respect of the amortisation of the appliance itself?

Mr. Warbey: I am not neglecting that in the least, but I am pointing out that there is a tremendous variety in the charges made by the proprietors of hotels. If I am asked, as I have been in some cases, to put a ls. in the slot to get one unit of electricity, I say that I am being grossly exploited, but that happens in many cases. Sometimes I may desire only half an hour's supply of electricity—half a kilowatt would be quite sufficient to meet my needs—but, because the slot takes only ls., I have to put in a ls. to get ½ d. worth of electricity. I might be lucky and find that some electricity has been left over by a previous occupant of the room, hut, unfortunately, that rarely happens.
This form of overcharging goes on in very many parts of the country in private houses and public places. Power to put an end to it ought to be made obligatory on all the area boards.

Mr. Richard Fort: I have more confidence in the consultative councils than has the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey). If those councils in other parts of the country are not reporting abuses such as we have heard of in the north-west, I very much wonder whether such abuse has spread outside the north-west because, if the councils are doing their jobs at all, by this time they should have heard of any cases in their areas.
I thank my right hon. Friend for having introduced this Clause in conformity with his undertaking in Committee when I moved the original Clause, which laid compulsory duties on the area boards. As the complaints seem to be limited to the north-west, I suggest that we should leave it to the area boards to deal with the situation as they find it in their areas instead of trying to give a flat order to cover the whole country.
There is one point of which I hope the area boards will take notice, on a matter which was raised by my hon. Friend he Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)


in an intervention. In determining the different maximum charges under subsection (3) of the new Clause, allowance should be made for charges which landlords are entitled to make for equipment with which they have supplied tenants—such as refrigerators and electric stoves. To try to leave that consideration out of account would be as unfair to landlords as the present arrangements are to tenants.
I believe that if they will take notice of this the courts are the best places to determine whether there has been overcharging in conformity with the list of maximum charges which the board can lay down if it wishes. I hope it will take account of the need for a charge for hire of equipment. With that qualification, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for having carried out his undertaking in a way which certainly gives me satisfaction and which, I believe, will also give satisfaction to the North-Western Electricity Consultative Council.

Mr. Nabarro: I wish to say a word or two on the subject matter of the intervention which the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) was kind enough to allow me to make in his speech.
This is a very complicated matter. The tenor of the speech of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) seemed to be a general attack on landlords and profiteering by landlords. In fact, the case which was quoted in Committee by the right hon. Member, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in column 605, to which the right hon. Member alluded briefly this afternoon, was to the general effect that a landlord had bought electricity at seven-eighths of Id. a unit and sold it to tenants of fiats at 5d. a unit.
That seemed to be an extraordinarily wide margin. In fact, the case was lifted verbatim from a brief circulated, I understand, by the North-Western Electricity Board. It is quite possible that the margin in that case was much too wide—

Mr. Warbey: That is the point.

Mr. Nabarro: —but I should not like hon. Members to believe that there should not be a margin, or not even a substantial margin, because in certain cases a landlord provides an electric refrigerator, an electric fire, or several

electric fires. He might well provide several electric lamps and other electric appliances, all of which he has to purchase. In respect of all those appliances he has made the investment and is properly entitled to demand a modicum of amortisation upon any unit of electricity which he sells.
I say, therefore, that as, quite clearly, conditions in a matter of this kind vary a very great deal up and down the country. I should dislike seeing area boards trying to take account of the amount of amortisation that a landlord should be allowed to collect in respect of all units of electricity he resold in what my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said was so largely a matter concerning domestic consumers. In that respect, it is a matter of special difficulty.
It might be a matter of controversy between the two sides of the House as to how a landlord should recover in respect of amortisation or depreciation of electrical appliances he has properly provided as part of the tenancy agreement. Should he seek to collect the sums involved as part of the weekly rent, or as part of the resale price for the electricity? I am not sure which is properly the statutory method of doing that. If my right hon. Friend. or whoever answers from the Treasury Bench, cares to enlighten me I shall be grateful. They are the alternatives. In the country I have discovered that both recourses are employed by landlords, but that does not necessarily signify that there is overcharging.
I have one final short point to make. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave me short shrift when I intervened to ask him what he meant, in subsection (2), by
… secure adequate publicity …
What does that mean? Does it mean a two-line classified advertisement in the local paper or a 9 in. treble-column advertisement? Does my hon. and learned Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Renton: No.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. and learned Friend mumbled something and I thought that he was giving me the answer.
I should like to know what is meant by
adequate publicity for it


I am very inexperienced in the matter of the statutes, but in my very limited experience I have not come across this form of words before. My hon. and learned Friend, with his extensive experience of these matters, will no doubt be able to quote respectable precedents for the employment of these words and, if so, I should like to know what they are.

Mr. Hayman: I am glad that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) suggested to the Minister that he might take into account not only the amortisation charges for gas and electric meters, but also the fact that hotel proprietors and others may very well include those items in their charges.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to do so, I will reply to some of the points which have been raised. I think that perhaps the most fundamental one was that raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) in which he pointed out that this Clause is only permissive, and suggested that the abuse which it is designed to cure is to be found throughout all the area boards.
There is a conflict of evidence about that. The hon. Gentleman maintains that it is found everywhere, whereas we maintain that it is found in a few areas. Quite candidly, I do not think that it matters very much because there will be power to cure the defect wherever it is found, so that if all the boards choose to use their powers and the whole of the country needs to be covered, well and good. If it is not found necessary for all the boards to use their powers, then only those boards which find it necessary to do so will do so.

Mr. Palmer: Was not this power made compulsory in the Gas Act?

Mr. Renton: It was compulsory in the Gas Act, I understand. I hope that it will not be out of order to discuss the Gas Act to a limited extent. It was compulsory in the Gas Act partly because the habit of domestic resale prevailed throughout all the areas of the country, whereas that has not to anything like the same extent been the case with regard to electricity. In any case, hon. Gentlemen opposite, when considering the Electricity Act, did not deal with this matter at all. We at least are filling in that gap.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) asked how the consumer could best be protected and said that he was anxious about that, as I am sure we all are. I concede that there are several ways of protecting the consumer. We could have criminal penalties against the landlord but that would not give necessarily very much satisfaction to the tenant, although it might act as some kind of sanction against the landlord. We could cut off the landlord's supply but that would hit them both and not give any satisfaction at all to anybody.
I suppose that when the right hon. Gentleman said that the area boards themselves might take some sort of action he was contemplating that they should all the time be going round to their domestic consumers, undertaking inquiries and checking abuse wherever they found it. That seems to me to be rather an unnecessarily complicated process. We have followed the much more simple and direct, and, as I say, effective solution of saying that if a tenant is overcharged by his landlord, then he might recover the excess in the county court —because that is where it would be recovered—and if the landlord puts him into court he has a good defence to the extent that he has been overcharged.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for enlightenment about this business of going to court. I should remind him that the county court scale of charges is not very high. In the case of amounts small enough for the registrar to hear the case, they are even smaller; the successful party recovers costs; and the legal aid scheme has now been extended to the county court. So I do not think that anyone need fear that he would be unable to enforce his remedy in court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked whether there was a precedent for the use of the words "adequate publicity". He will be interested to know if he turns to Section 37(2) of the 1947 Act that he will find the same words used there.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not respectable. Section 37(2) of the 1947 Act refers to the Central Authority, and says that it
will secure adequate publicity for them.


We are not talking about the Central Authority, we are talking of a host of area boards. That is a very different proposition.

Mr. Renton: I must confess that I cannot point to the exact Amendment at the moment, but my hon. Friend will find that there is an adaptation to Section 37 of the 1947 Act which should put that matter right. At all events, he was asking me for a precedent for the use of those words and that precedent is in the 1947 Act. Indeed, I think that if the area boards pursue the policy that they have done in the past for the publicising of their charges, which, so far as I know, has given satisfaction, and uses the same method of publication in regard to these types of charges, my hon. Friend's point will be met and his fears, such as they are, will be allayed.

Mr. Nabarro: I thank my hon. and learned Friend very much.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Kidderminster also asked whether in those cases in which the resale charge was included in the rent, the matter could be adequately covered by this Clause. As I see the position, it will work out in this way. If a landlord decides that instead of making a separate charge for the resale of electricity he is going to include it in an inclusive rent and the tenant takes him to court for charging an excess on electricity, the landlord would be put to the burden of proof in the court that that part of the rent which represented electricity charges was not excessive. After all, the courts are not unaccustomed to having to disentangle various items in rent and in this case that would not be especially difficult for them to do.
I hope that, these points having been answered, the House will feel disposed to accept the new Clause. May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) for inspiring my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) to put this matter forward and fill in a gap in the old Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause.—(CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS.)

(1) In addition to the statements of accounts required by section forty-six of the principal Act, the Electricity Council shall prepare, in respect of each financial year beginning on or after the vesting date, a consolidated statement of accounts of the Council, the Generating Board and the Area Boards for that year in such form as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct. being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards.

(2) The form of a consolidated statement under this section shall be such as to provide separate information with respect to the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the other main activities of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales, and to show as far as may be the financial and operating results of each such activity.

(3) The consolidated statement prepared under this section for a financial year shall be submitted to the auditors appointed by the Minister to audit the accounts of the Electricity Council for that year, and those auditors shall make a report on the statement.

(4) As soon as the auditors have made a report on a consolidated statement prepared under this section, the Electricity Council shall send a copy of the statement and of that report to the Minister; and copies of the statement and report shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price.

(5) The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement prepared under this section and of the report of the auditors thereon. —[Mr. Maudling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause is designed to carry out an undertaking which I gave during Committee stage in answer to a helpful suggestion put forward from the other side of the Committee that there should be consolidated accounts as well as accounts of the individual boards. I am sure that the House as a whole will agree that it will be an improvement and that if we were merely to have the individual board accounts we should be missing something. To make the picture complete we should have a consolidated statement for the industry as a whole.
This Clause is moulded on Section 46 of the principal Act, which I think everyone will agree has been working quite satisfactorily for the last ten years. First, it says that in addition to the statements of accounts required for the individual


boards, the Electricity Council shall prepare an annual consolidated statement of accounts
in such form as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct, being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards.
That is the provision under which the industry has been working since 1947 and it will be generally agreed that it has worked satisfactorily.
Subsection (2) says that this consolidated statement shall
provide separate information with respect to the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the other main activities of the electricity supply industry ",
and as far as possible shall show
the financial and operating results of each such activity.
I am sure that is desirable—it follows precedent—because the more we can distinguish the various activities of the different boards and the industry as a whole the more true a picture we can get of its general efficiency and the meaning of its results.
Subsection (3) refers to the auditing of the accounts by the auditors appointed by the Minister to audit the accounts of the Council. Subsection (4) provides for the statement to be made and to be made public, and subsection (5) provides for it to be laid before each House of Parliament.
The Clause is to meet an undertaking which I gave earlier, and I hope it will commend itself to the House because it seems clearly common sense and an advantage that there should be, in proper form and the form to which we have grown accustomed, a consolidated statement of accounts for the industry as a whole which it shall be the responsibility of the Council to produce and which shall he laid before Parliament.

Mr. Palmer: We welcome this new and very useful Clause. As the Minister courteously acknowledged, it has been moved in response to a suggestion made by the Opposition in Committee. If I remember correctly, I moved the original Amendment.
We think it is an extremely sensible and valuable Clause. Apparently the accounts are to be presented in the best commercial form. May I make a plea which I have made previously on this

matter—that the accounts should not only be in the best commercial form but should also be in a form which enables even the normal intelligence of Members of Parliament to understand them?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: May I make a short comment on subsection (2)? It deals with information not only
with respect to the generation of electricity 
but also with respect to
each other of the main activities of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales
and the statement is
to show as far as may be the financial and operating results of each such activity.
In Standing Committee my right hon. Friend said:
The present Minister of Supply, when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, explained that he had given instructions to the boards to maintain separate accounts for their separate activities, in order to see that the details were properly allocated between one and the other.
He made that comment in reference to the activities of the Board in trading in retail appliances
I am one who believes that the market in electrical appliances is expanding, and what we want to see is the area boards, together with the private contractors, increasing their share of that market. I fully agree with the point which my right hon. Friend made, when he went on to say:
Through free and fair competition we get the biggest and most efficient market in all these appliances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th February, 1957; c. 352.]
On the other hand, it would be idle not to recognise that for a long time there has been considerable concern among private contractors about the activities of the area boards in this matter. Some of them have felt—I do not suggest that they were necessarily always right, but it is right that the point should be made—that they have been competing against unfair competition on the part of the area boards. If the maximum publicity is given to the affairs of the boards and if their accounts in this connection are made as clear and as full as possible, those fears will largely disappear.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Clause in effect makes mandatory the instructions which the present Minister of Supply originally gave to the


area boards, and whether he will have this point very much in mind in order to dispel the fog of unhappiness which has undoubtedly clouded the retail activities of the area boards in the past.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that anyone has anything to hide in this matter. The phrase in the new Clause is
other main activities of the electricity supply industry ".
I am sure that what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply meant in his announcement was that he would ask the area boards and electricity boards generally, who will certainly agree, to treat such retail activities as they are engaging in as "other main activities" so that they may be separately shown in the accounts. The intention was as far as possible to show separately the accounts of the retailing activities, and I think that is generally right.

Mr. Palmer: Is it not a fact that there was agreement with the Electrical Contractors Association to that effect?

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not also a fact that there is no agreement whatever in respect of the retail activities of the area boards. selling appliances, between them and their counterpart private enterprise suppliers of appliances—no agreement at all? Only on contracting is there an agreement.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that that arises out of the Clause. The main point here is whether the consolidated accounts will show the effect of the retail activities. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the intention and that it is the desire of everyone.

Mr. Nabarro: I have not previously intervened in the debate, because this might be considered a relatively minor point at this stage, but not only should we have these accounts of the principal activities of the area boards but I hope they will show in properly analysed form what are the various forms of expenditure incurred, notably in connection with the retail sales activities. For example, we have the monstrous situation today, still obtaining, that in respect of many of these area boards' showrooms nothing whatever is paid in rates to the local authorities, either through the pool or

directly to the authorities, yet the area boards' showrooms are full of appliances of every description which the boards sell in competition with private enterprise shopkeepers.
That is the kind of thing which I want brought out in detail and shown in the accounts published from time to time so that we in the House may put our finger upon unfair trading practices of that kind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause. —(DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND EFFICIENT UTILISATION OF ALL FORMS OF ENERGY.)

In exercising his powers under section seven of this Act the Minister shall pay regard to developing the electricity supply industry in relation to a national policy for the efficient utilisation of all primary and secondary forms of energy. —[Mr. Palmer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause, which deals with the development of electricity supply and the efficient utilisation of all forms of energy, is related to Clause 7. If Clause 7 is studied, it will be noted that it allows the Minister to direct the boards in the national interest. It is our contention that a balanced fuel and power policy, or as I prefer to describe it, a balanced energy policy, is very much in the national interest.
Our argument is that these new developments in electricity, for which we are now legislating in this Bill, should move ahead with that kind of consideration in mind, and should be part of the general national policy for balance in the proper utilisation of the country's fuel and power resources.
I think that we would freely confess—and I hope that here I carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me—that, looking back to the years between 1945 and 1950, when we brought into public ownership some of our basic fuel industries, we did not always organise properly their balance in relation one to another—

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad that I carry the hon. Member with me, at least on that point.
This Bill quite properly proposes a decentralisation of the industry in the light of our experience over the last ten years. Although we have disagreed and argued about details we have not, on this side of the House, quarrelled with the Government over the broad intention of the Bill to bring about a greater measure of decentralisation in the electricity supply industry. There is, however, the danger that, with decentralisation, and greater independence for the separate parts of the industry, the tendency for each of its parts to go its way without proper regard to the general national interest might get rather worse than better. Hence the argument which I am attempting to put forward in support of this new Clause.
The Clause does not go into details. We think that that would not be possible. We do not intend to attempt to define in a Clause of a Bill what really should be a national fuel and power policy. That is a matter for discussion and consideration from time to time by those who are responsible, and it would not be appropriate to consolidate such details in a Statute. We are prepared to leave the details to the Authority and to the good sense of Ministers; but if I might use, even in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) what is really a nautical analogy, I would say that if the Bill gives greater authority and discretion to the individual ships of the electricity supply fleet, we are very anxious that the whole fleet should continue to sail in the right direction.
I appreciate, of course, that a Clause like this does allow of very wide debate on many aspects of fuel and power policy —for instance, on the nuclear energy programme. There was quite a far-reaching debate yesterday in another place on that programme. It was short but, perhaps, fairly good. It would not be proper for me to go further than to say that some of the speeches there related the nuclear energy programme to the fuel and power policy generally.
We have been promised, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a White Paper on the nuclear energy programme and we are looking forward to getting it soon. I

must say that our deliberations in Committee would have been tremendously assisted had that White Paper been available to us, but it is something we are to have, and no doubt when it comes along opportunity will be provided for a debate on it. Assuming that there may be a larger and more general debate on this issue in the future I do not want to go out of my way, in discussing one new Clause to the Bill, to anticipate that wider debate too much. Nevertheless, it is not possible to advance the arguments in favour of the Clause without raising one or two of the issues that would obviously seem to be connected with a proper fuel and power policy.
The Clause speaks of
…the efficient utilisation of all primary and secondary forms of energy.
I would define "efficient utilisation" in these terms. Efficient utilisation, meaning, of course, a national fuel and power policy, should contain at least these three essentials. In the first place, it should secure sufficient energy from all sources to bring supply and demand into balance within the shortest possible time. Secondly, it should provide the energy from the most economical and suitable sources according to an overall plan for capital expenditure. Thirdly, it should make avoidable fuel waste either very expensive, or even, in some circumstances, illegal.

Mr. Nabarro: Thermal insulation.

Mr. Palmer: Yes. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) refers to thermal insulation. He knows that I have had the pleasure to attach my name to the Bill which he is promoting towards that end.
It is easy enough to state general principles in a matter of this kind, but the issue is how to attain them within the flux of ever-changing practical circumstances. I hope, quite shortly, to discuss these three principles in turn, and in that way, perhaps, to put before the House the considerations which we have in mind.
I have said that in that policy we should make provision, from all sources, for sufficient energy for the needs of the country. Since the end of the war, of course, full employment has created difficulties in relation not only to coal supplies but to electricity supplies, resulting, in the latter case, in load shedding


and electricity voltage reduction. Load shedding—and, to a great extent, absolute shortage of coal—has apparently been cured for the moment, thanks to the energy and the hard work of the Central Electricity Authority in installing vast quantities of new generating plant, mains, transmission lines and the other services that go with them.
5.0 p.m.
It seems to me that all this is at any time at the mercy of two climates. It is at the mercy of our own natural climate in these islands. If we get a difficult or bad winter, we might once again have a fuel crisis. This matter of our energy supplies is also at the mercy of the climate of international politics, as we have seen in recent times in the matter of oil supplies.
The second point which I have put forward as being the basis of a fuel policy which we think should be in the mind of the Minister when directing this industry in the national interest, is that we should use the most economical and suitable sources. It will be noticed that our Clause speaks of primary forms of energy. There is no doubt what are the primary sources and forms of energy in this country.
In the first place, we must put coal, which is for the moment and will be in the measurable future our mainstay. In the second place, we put oil, and thirdly, nuclear energy. There are, of course, other sources which can be utilised in some cases for the provision of electricity. There are water power, tidal power, and electrical inter-connection with Europe. But all these, we must confess, are in themselves extremely marginal, apart from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's tremendous efforts, but even these taken together are marginal sources of energy and do not make any great contribution to our total needs.
It is possible to work out the calculations showing how the energy needs of the country are being met at the moment and how the gap is being filled largely with energy derived from oil, and there are figures—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we have your guidance? Surely, this new Clause cannot be debated against the background

of a national fuel and power policy involving all forms of fuel, power and energy, for that would not be within the terms of the Bill, which deals only with electrical energy. Therefore, in order to save the time of the House, should not this debate be restricted to the narrow point of developing the electricity supply industry and not be allowed to wander over the whole of the fuel and power economics, technology and policy?

Mr. Palmer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think you would perhaps agree, as I am sure you have listened to what I have said, that all my arguments have been related to the electricity side of the industry.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This new Clause in its wording specifically relates to Clause 7 of the Bill which is very germane to this matter, as it gives the Minister power to effect certain directions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was, of course, listening to the hon. Member and I thought he was in order. Of course, hon. Members may not develop arguments about forms of energy apart from electricity, but I think they may compare them.

Mr. Palmer: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not see why the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who is very interested in this subject, should feel so strongly about discussing this matter this afternoon. I am very surprised at him. I gave him credit for being a rather better Parliamentarian. Surely, if the Clause has been called, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are entitled to discuss it, and to put our own interpretation upon the wording in it. The Clause refers to
the efficient utilisation of all primary and secondary forms of energy.
I have already said that I do not wish to go wider than is necessary. I appreciate there may later be another debate in the House on this matter. I am talking of electricity supply, and I propose to continue in that way.
I was dealing with the sources of energy available to us, and I was about to work out certain calculations, although I shall spare the House from going into too much detail, showing the gap between


our energy needs and our supplies of coal which arc available for the manufacture of electricity. We are largely dependent on oil, but in the future we propose to make a far greater use of nuclear energy.
Some figures have been given in the Economic Survey showing the anticipated situation in 1965. All those figures are given in terms of coal equivalent in million tons. It is generally reckoned that the national energy needs in 1965 will be approximately 300 million tons of coal or of coal equivalent, and it is hoped that at that time the coal mines will supply 240 million tons, that the oil industry in terms of coal equivalent will supply 51 million tons, water sources, including hydro-electric power, 2 million tons, and nuclear energy 18 million tons.
It should be noted, however, that these figures, which are in the Economic Survey and were quoted in another place yesterday, even with the expanded nuclear programme and on the assumption that coal production will in time greatly increase, anticipate that oil imports will have advanced by some 13 million tons. This leads me to the first question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think this country can hope at any time to get away from dependence on oil—

Mr. Maudling: I am in a little difficulty here. I thought that the point that we were arguing was whether, in considering a capital programme in the electricity industry, the Minister should have regard to the general fuel and power picture. The hon. Member seems to be going beyond that and showing what the picture should be. I should have thought that would have been out of order. In my submission, to deal with the contents of that picture is going a little further than should go in discussing this new Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry that the wording of my earlier point of order was not as clear as it might have been. My right hon. Friend has now put it into the most lucid terms. I wonder whether you could regard my right hon. Friend's cogent intervention as a proper corroboration of what I put to you earlier on a point of order, and whether you would agree that this debate should be restricted to the narrower point of the electricity

supply industry instead of dealing with the whole of the fuel and power policy?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gave my Ruling before and I am not going to change it on any account. This new Clause deals with
all the primary and secondary forms of energy.

Mr. Hobson: Could the Minister say, in view of the nature of his intervention, which was interesting, whether it means that he is accepting this new Clause?

Mr. Palmer: In a moment I shall be putting that point myself to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) has simply anticipated me. I am going to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should accept this new Clause.
This point has a bearing upon the policies of the electricity supply industry in the future. We cannot as a nation get away from our dependence on oil for industry, agriculture, transport, and for use in the home. We should try to restrict our dependence upon oil but we cannot escape from it. The ideal in the future may be to turn over to nuclear energy for electrical power production, provided that we have the money, the materials and the manpower. But if we do that, I think it is likely that there will be a surplus of low-grade coal which is used at the moment largely in the electrical power stations of the country.
The question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether the Government have any proposals for using, as we think it should be used—and this is one suggestion which could be made in relation to the new Clause—the low-grade fuel no longer required in the generating stations because nuclear energy will be taking its place. Are there any proposals for turning that coal into oil through the scientific and technical processes that are now available? We think a Clause of this kind would permit the Minister to direct a policy of that nature, and that is one of the practical arguments for having such a Clause.
I would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in putting so much emphasis, as we have done, on the nuclear energy programme, and we do not


quarrel with that emphasis, provided that it does not stretch the capital resources of the country too far, an argument which should be considered, and for studying which we think that this Clause provides an opportunity, is this. Would not a comparable return have been achieved if we had devoted larger sums to fuel conservation? That is a point on which we should like the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Finally, and again in justification of the Clause, it is well known that the nuclear power stations which we are now proposing to build are basically constant load stations, and we feel that, in developing the electricity supply industry in the future as it must be developed, with nuclear power being the source of much of the electricity, far more attention will have to be given—and the Minister will need to have some kind of responsibility for this—to improving the load factor of the electricity supply industry. Again, we think that that is a justification for having a Clause of this kind.
It may be said that that is not a thing that can be done by the electricity supply industry alone. We quite appreciate that, but nevertheless the Minister of Power has overall responsibilities and we want those responsibilities to be strengthened in support of a national fuel policy. If ever the opportunity came along for revising legislation, let us say, so far as the gas industry is concerned, it might be useful to have a Clause to this effect in such a Bill, which I know I must not anticipate at this stage.
In spite of the objections by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who seems to think that no one must have an idea unless he puts it forward first, I feel that there is very much justification for a Clause of this kind in the new circumstances into which the industry is now moving with the nuclear energy programme. That is why we very seriously urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the new Clause because of its general good sense.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has demonstrated the need for the Minister to take into account

a full consideration of the total energy problem of the country when giving any approvals or directions which he is required to give under the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not feel that he can reply in any narrower sense than has been indicated already by the Chair as being within the scope of the debate. If the Minister were to do that, I must say that it would only further add to the impression which we have already on this side of the House that the Government are dragging their feet in the matter of this problem of the proper development of a national energy policy.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Nonsense.

Mr. Warbey: We have had some changes in the title of the Minister. We have had a Minister of Fuel and Power, and now we have a Minister of Power. What we have not had under this Conservative Government is a Minister of energy. The Government have shown remarkably little energy about this question throughout the whole of their term of office. More than a year ago, the need for an expansion of the nuclear energy programme was apparent to everyone, and we were promised a statement last autumn, but did not get it until a month ago. When we did get it, it was in very inadequate form and only in bare outline, without giving even the indication that there would be a White Paper as fully detailed as the one that we had in February, 1955.

Mr. Fort: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why it was impossible to produce the White Paper much earlier than it did appear was that there was no experience of Calder Hall?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are allowed a wide debate, but I think that we are getting a little too wide now.

Mr. Warbey: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that so far I have made one or two remarks of a general character, which I thought were normally allowed in a debate of this kind, and which have been simply related to the point that we have not had from the Government all the information that we are entitled to have and at the right time. I submit with very great respect that it is not improper to advance a point of that kind in a debate of this character, because it is quite clear—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was the point which I thought was going wide of this Clause.

Mr. Warbey: With very great respect, I suggest that it is in accordance with precedent in this House to seek to extract information from the Government on matters relevant to those under discussion. We have not had it, and we shall not get it—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot get it under this new Clause. That is my point.

Mr. Warbey: What we do get under this new Clause, or what I hope we shall get, is an indication from the Government that they do intend, in giving any directions or making any approvals under this Bill when it becomes an Act, to ensure that the electricity supply industry shall be developed in such a way as to take into proper account the various sources of energy which are available, and to ensure that they are utilised in consideration of a proper total national policy of energy utilisation and capital investment. That is what we are seeking an assurance about, and I hone that we shall have it.
I hope that we shall have from the Minister an indication, not of every detail in the picture, but of all the elements of the picture, and the elements which should he taken into account, I suggest, are those such as the following. We must have some indication in any such total picture of what is the programme of nuclear power development under this Bill for the next ten years. We should have some indication on how the utilisation of nuclear energy for the production of electricity is to be related to the utilisation of other forms of fuel for electricty production, of the part that coal and oil are to play in relation to nuclear energy—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the Minister will not reply to all that, because he will be out of order, too, if he does.

Mr. Warbey: I was not asking him to give us every detail of every figure. I am asking him to say that these things will be taken into account—that, I suggest, is what our Clause is about—and indicate that the Government are prepared, and will be prepared, when the Minister considers this matter, to take into account

all that should be taken into account in giving directions to the industry.
The matters to be taken into account include a good deal more than just decisions about the number of generating stations to be erected during the next ten years. Such matters include also decisions about what types of fuel are to be used, and a balancing of the considerations, given the factor, which we all accept, that we have to make the greatest possible use of coal and maximise coal production, as to whether, in the coming years, we shall still have to make a choice between the use of nuclear energy and the use of oil for generating electricity.
Further, in considering this matter, we shall have to look not seven or eight years ahead, but fifteen, twenty and thirty years ahead. I should like to know from the Government whether, in sketching out the picture, they are prepared to include a consideration of the energy requirements of the country not up to 1965, but up to 1975 and 1985.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been very patient. If the hon. Gentleman will not obey my Ruling, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Warbey: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am making every effort to obey your Ruling, and I though that I was doing so. All that I am saying is what is meant or implied by the Clause.It reads:
In exercising his powers under section seven of this Act the Minister shall pay regard to developing the electricity supply industry in relation to a national policy for the efficient utilisation of all primary and secondary forms of energy.
All primary and secondary forms of energy include nuclear energy, oil, coal, hydro-electricity and other marginal forms of energy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My point was that I do not think that the Minister should be expected to formulate a national policy under this new Clause.

Mr. Warbey: The Clause requires the Minister to formulate a policy for the electricity supply industry in relation to a national policy for the utilisation of all forms of energy. In other words, it requires that he shall take into account this wider picture. I must say, with all respect, that I cannot see how we can


argue the case for taking into account this wider picture until we are allowed to say what elements should be in that wider picture. That is all I am endeavouring to do.
I am trying to show that the elements in that wider picture are to be found in a consideration of what balance one is to strike between the utilisation of these different forms of energy and what resources one is to put at the disposal of the various industries concerned for expansion and development. Is the Minister prepared to include in his picture, for example, a consideration of what allocation of manpower and materials is to be made not merely in 1965, but also in 1975, between the nuclear energy industry and the coal and oil industries? [Interruption.] May we have some respect for the Chair from hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will obey that himself.

Mr. Warbey: I am endeavouring to do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am certainly doing my best to discuss the new Clause within the terms of your Ruling. I must say that I cannot conceive of any narrower terms for discussing it than those in which I am discussing it, unless I cease discussing it altogether.
Since the Clause has been accepted as being in order, by being called, presumably we are to be allowed to discuss it. I propose to go on discussing the new Clause in the terms as set down on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to defy me.

Mr. Warbey: That would be the last thing which would be in my mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All I was suggesting was that I should be permitted, and that other hon. Members should be permitted, to discuss the Clause in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper, which, through its being called, have been accepted by the Chair.
I was going on to say, before some hon. Members opposite became disorderly, that the Minister must be prepared to take into account, in drawing his picture within which he envisages his electricity policy, what resources in terms

of manpower and materials, including, for example, such scarce materials as steel, are to be allocated directly to the electricity supply industry in terms of generating plant, and so on, to the nuclear power industry in terms of steel plate, and so on, for the erection of reactors, to the coal industry in terms of equipment for the expansion of coal production—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Maudling: This new Clause lays it down that the Minister, in exercising his power under Clause 7, shall
 pay regard to developing the electricity supply industry in relation to a national policy for the efficient utilisation of all primary and secondary forms of energy.
I take it that what we are discussing is whether, in settling particularly the capital programmes, which are the important things under Clause 7, the Minister should or should not have regard to a national policy for fuel and power as a whole. What we are not entitled to discuss, as I understand it, is what the contents of such a general picture should be. We are discussing whether he should make his decisions about electricity in the general fuel and power context. I understand that to be the point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
My answer to that would be to say, in the first place, that that is in fact what happens, and, in the second place, to say that this new Clause is not necessary for legal purposes to ensure that it does happen. I will explain very briefly what I have in mind, while endeavouring not to transgress the rules of order, though I am very tempted to enter upon a discussion on energy balance, as it is called, which is a fascinating subject which one can go on discussing for a very long time.
I shall not be out of order if I say that there is ample evidence that, in practice, the electricity supply capital programme is set by the Government within a national policy of the kind envisaged in the new Clause. The evidence for that is the published documents which have already set out the future programmes for the coal industry, the electricity industry, the gas industry and, recently, for nuclear power development. Perhaps I could say, in parenthesis, that we are intending very shortly to publish the White Paper


which was promised last year on the capital development programmes of the various fuel and power industries and that, appended to it, will be a special annex setting out in some detail what lies behind the nuclear power programme recently announced.
5.30 p.m.
Without entering in any way into the contents of these documents, my point is to show that their publication is evidence that the Government are setting out all the constituent factors of the national energy programme in the general picture of the total demand for energy and the total means of supply. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in saying that the picture must include both indigenous sources of fuel and imported sources, fuel saving as a whole, fuel getting, and the different economics of fuel extraction, both in terms of £ s. d. and foreign exchange commitments as against indigenous costs.

Mr. Palmer: We appreciate that there must be some kind of consultation, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to tell us just what is the machinery of consultation. One does not want him to give away Cabinet secrets—he would not do so in any case—but one would like to know what is the machinery of consultation as between all sections of the fuel and power industry.

Mr. Maudling: All the nationalised sections of the fuel and power industry have, by law, to submit their capital programmes, and, so far as the petroleum industry is concerned, we have a good deal of knowledge of what its future plans are likely to be.
The principal function of the Minister is to see that these various plans are co-ordinated, and in doing that he and his staff rely on the assessment of the total demands of the country for the future. Secondly, the Minister must have laid before him the various ways in which that demand can be met. That, I think, is what hon. Members opposite mean by the new Clause. That is what the Minister does. It is his primary responsibility to ensure that he has laid before him the estimates of total energy demands and the various ways in which it is proposed that these demands should be met. Then it is his function to see that the meeting of those demands for energy shall

be in accord with the national policy and so ensure that we get our energy supply in the cheapest possible economical terms. That. I regard, as the primary duty of the Minister and that is the duty which the proposed new Clause seeks to lay upon him. I cannot accept the Clause for the reason that it is unnecessary.
If the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) would be good enough to look at Section I of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945—I am afraid he will not have it with him—he will see that the Minister is
charged with the general duty of securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power in Great Britain … and of promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution. use and consumption of fuel and power, whether produced in Great Britain or not.
Therefore, by the basic Act, which established the Ministry of Fuel and Power, now the Ministry of Power, the Minister has the duty of securing effective and coordinated development of all our fuel and power resources. That seems to me to be exactly what is included in the new Clause.
I think it would be wrong as a general principle of our Statute law to put in a particular Clause of a particular Bill that the Minister shall carry out in this respect a duty which he is already under obligation to carry out in every respect. Therefore, I think that we should be adding nothing to the Statute law by adding the Clause to the Bill. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that setting the programme for the electricity supply industry must clearly be done in the context of a national policy for all forms of energy.
I hope that I may have persuaded the hon. Member for Cleveland that we accept what he says about the way in which the Minister should act which is, in fact, the way in which the Minister already acts. In fact, the Minister is already obliged by the Act to do what hon. Members opposite are seeking to make him do by the Clause.

Mr. Cyril Bence: One point struck me when I read the new Clause, a point which has not been mentioned so far in the debate. At the present moment, we are using nuclear energy solely for the purpose of


generating electricity. It seems to me that, for the time being, the electricity industry will be the sole consumer of nuclear power. We are trying to convert nuclear energy to other mediums than electric power. For instance, we are thinking of using it for driving ships.
One can visualise a development in the next decade by which it would be quite possible for large consumers of power themselves to employ nuclear energy locally, either for generating steam or electricity. It was on that point that I thought the new Clause would be very useful. In the generation of electrical power through nuclear energy, we should watch very carefully developments of the conversion of nuclear energy into mechanical energy in smaller units for the local development of electricity. We may be able to develop the use of nuclear energy for replacing oil in a local capacity.
For instance, we can visualise the discovery of a machine that would drive a ship by converting nuclear energy into steam which. in turn, would drive the turbines. By so doing, we could conserve a great deal of oil. Obviously, by using such a method of energy in the merchant fleet, we could save tremendous amounts of oil.
When I read the Clause. I got the impression that what my right hon. and hon. Friends were thinking of was that the Minister and the Government—any Government—must watch the situation very carefully, because the most important fuel that we need to save is oil. I do not see how any great saving can be made in the consumption of oil when so much oil is being used either in oil-burning ships or in the heating of large buildings. It may well be that in the next decade we shall have nuclear energy supplied in some form in which it can be used for heating large buildings or for driving ships.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Have you perceived, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there is nothing about oil or ships in the Bill?

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might answer one point of order at a time. I

quite understand that. I thought the argument was based on the fact that nuclear power was to be used for generating electricity.

Mr. Bence: I am not trying to be controversial, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am just raising a point which, it struck me, was quite worth while the Paymaster-General and the Minister of Power considering, that in our economic situation the various Ministers should consider in what fields our atomic energy can best be used in order to conserve our sources of raw materials. I should imagine that one of the things we want to conserve, because of our balance of payments problem, is oil. Therefore, I think that the Paymaster-General should consider when he is giving directions to the electricity industry to what extent developments may enable us in local cases to conserve electrical generation by the use of nuclear energy converted into mechanical energy.
The railways may, perhaps, be cited as an instance in the matter. It may well be that in a couple of decades the British railway system will be in a position, through inventions using nuclear energy, to have a lot of its power and energy produced from local nuclear energy in the form of some mechanical device. Only a few weeks ago, I saw an advertisement by the Atomic Energy Authority for mechanical engineers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must keep to the development of electricity supplies. I think that he is now leaving that out altogether, is he not?

Mr. Bence: I was trying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to point out that the new Clause asks the Paymaster-General, in giving his directions to the electricity generation and supply side of the industry, to take into consideration developments which are taking place in all other fields of power development. It may well be that power development through nuclear energy will move ahead at such a pace that we may be using too much nuclear energy in the generation of elecrical power, because in that case one has to provide a constant load for it, with the effect that we might reach an unbalance. I may be making my point badly.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bence: Unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I have no illusions. I am not sufficiently egocentric to think that around my mental capacity the whole universe of power revolves. As a mechanical engineer, I am trying to apply myself to the possibilities of converting nuclear energy into mechanical power through a medium other than electricity.
I had hoped that by means of the Clause—I had hoped the Minister might be able to accept it—the Minister would have co-ordinated the various power agencies to ensure that we had balanced progress and kept keen watch on the possibilities of the conversion of nuclear energy into mechanical energy other than through the medium of electricity.

Sir F. Soskice: We seek, by the proposed Clause, to present in a somewhat different and, we hope, appropriate form the criticism that we have generally as to the changes brought about by the Bill.
The anxiety of the Opposition in Committee was caused by the fact that we noted that the Bill dismantled the Central Electricity Authority and put in its place an Electricity Council, which, by common agreement, was intended by the Government simply to be a kind of advisory body with some added functions. The Central Electricity Authority was under the duty of maintaining the overall efficiency of the electricity industry. It was specifically invested with that duty by Section 1 of the 1947 Act. What was uppermost in our minds in the criticisms we advanced on Second Reading, and in Committee, was that the central pivot was being removed by the Bill and that this almost powerless body was being substituted.
One of our objectives in moving the Clause is that if the Central Electricity Authority is to go and thus leave a void behind it, we say that a way of filling that void is to make it obligatory upon the Minister to consider the national situation in the exercise of his powers. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we relate the obligation that we put upon the Minister by the Clause specifically to the exercise of his powers under Clause 7.
The Minister replied to our arguments by saying that the new Clause is not necessary because already, under Section 1 (1) of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, there is in similar terms—I

must point out that it is in somewhat vague and general terms—a duty already imposed upon the Minister analogous to that which we propose. The Minister's answer was really twofold. He said that the Government were conscious of what we seek to emphasise by the Clause, and he also said that the Government were already conscious that under existing legislation that duty was imposed on the Minister.
5.45 p.m.
While my hon. Friends and I appreciate the force of what the Minister says, we feel that our point is not adequately met. We are alarmed and anxious about the void. We feel that unless it is centrally co-ordinated by a body which stands in an analagous position in relation to its powers as the Central Electricity Authority, the industry may disintegrate or move in a rudderless fashion. We think that it should be more centrally controlled and guided. We agree that there is a point in favour of a certain amount of decentralisation—our vote on Second Reading indicated that—but we think that the Government have gone too far in that direction. We seek, by the Clause, to remedy the position which the Government have brought about, and remedy it in a new form.
Therefore, we seek, by means of the Clause, to say that when the Minister exercises his power under Clause 7 he must discharge the function which was originally vested in the Central Electricity Authority. We say that it is his specific responsibility to have in mind that the industry must not be allowed to move rudderless. In the national interest, it must be controlled.
We seek also to say that in exercising that control over the industry the Minister should have regard not merely to the electricity industry as such, isolated from all contact with other sources of power, but, in particular, to what in a sense is a comparatively new situation, the fact that there has now arrived on the scene this new, important source of power, nuclear energy. We say that he should not only have regard to the national position, but should bring into account new sources of nuclear power and have regard to their relationship with existing sources of power. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am not going outside the limits of your Ruling. I will try to keep well


within the centre area. I do not think that I need do more than refer to what my hon. Friends have said.

Mr. John Peyton: If the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) were the Minister exercising his powers under Clause 7, would he not do automatically what is demanded in the proposed Clause. whether it were in the Bill or not?

Sir F. Soskice: I profoundly hope so. but I want to make sure by means of the Clause that the Minister will do it. He certainly ought to do so, and a prudent and efficient Minister undoubtedly would have national considerations in his mind. However, inasmuch as we do not live in an anarchistic society, and inasmuch as we seek to define and impose duties by the specific terms of the statutes that we put on the Statute Book, we think it not unreasonable to include in his duties that duty which I confess we would hope and anticipate that a prudent and efficient Minister would in any event discharge.

Mr. Peyton: Could any Minister exercising his powers under Clause 7 possibly avoid doing what is contained in the proposed Clause?

Sir F. Soskice: I regard the intervention of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) as an additional argument in favour of the proposed Clause. He says that if the Minister looked at the Bill he would probably say to himself, "In exercising my powers under the subsection, I ought to have regard to the duty set out in the proposed Clause." However, the right hon. Gentleman might look at the Bill and find that the duty was not obligatory upon him. We think that an additional argument, looking at it from the point of view of the public interest, for ensuring that he is positively bound by the words of the Statute. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, because he points to Section 1 (1) of the 1945 Act, and he has himself furnished the answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil. The Legislature tells Ministers what they must do—

Mr. Maudling: In those circumstances, I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain how it would be possible for the Minister to ignore these considerations of national policy for

which he is arguing without, at the same time, infringing his duty under the Statute of 1945?

Sir F. Soskice: I was coming to that.
As I say, the Government and Opposition, on this new Clause, are nearly together. The Paymaster-General has, indeed, accepted that there must be some obligation upon the Minister to observe the duty which we seek to impose upon him. The only question between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends on this side of the House is this: does the existing legislation in sufficiently specific terms enjoin upon the Minister the duty of so observing it? My right hon. and hon. Friends feel that Section 1 (I) of the Act of 1945 is too general in its terms to give us the assurance which we seek to derive from adding our new Clause to the Bill.
It is really a question of language. We think that the existing obligation upon the Minister is not sufficiently specific, and we seek, by our Clause, to define it by appending it to Clause 7 of the Bill, The Paymaster-General, by pointing to the 1945 provisions. accepts in principle—so I, at any rate, would read his mind—what we seek to achieve. In those circumstances, I should have thought, if he realises that in principle it is right, he ought to have accepted what we propose to the House, namely, that in terms it ought to be specified as necessary.
I feel that the Paymaster-General, while accepting in principle what we propose, stops short by not accepting the letter of what we suggest. It seems to me that that is hardly a logical attitude, and I would ask him to think again about it. If he feels unable to go with us this short extra distance I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will express their view about the Clause by taking it to a Division.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I intervened during the Paymaster-General's earlier remarks to ask him whether he would accept the new Clause. I did so because I had in mind the very full statement which was made in another place yesterday by the Minister of Power, who there stated, very categorically, the whole programme for nuclear energy. He referred, and in great detail, too, to the 19 proposed nuclear power stations to be erected. He also


went into details of the cost of the uranium fuel.
In view of that, it seems to me that the Government arc thinking along the lines of this new Clause. If that is so, and as there is really not much difference between the two sides of the House about this issue, surely the Paymaster-General could accept, if not the words, the substance, of this new Clause, and could give an undertaking to have such a new Clause submitted when the Bill goes to another

place. I appeal to the. right hon. Gentleman to do so.

There has already been stated categorically a programme for the interlinking of the sources of power, so the right hon. Gentleman could go the whole way with us and write into the Bill a provision to ensure this relationship.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 188, Noes 229.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[5.54 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Proctor, W. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holmes, Horace
Randall, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hoy, J. H.
Redhead, E. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Bence, C R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William


Benson, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Royle, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (lnce)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, W. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


CollicK, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lipton, Marcus
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cronin, J. D.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mclnnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewisham,S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mort, D. L.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Moss, R.
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Padley, W. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Parker, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Pentland, N.



Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.


Aitken, W. T.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Green, A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimond, J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Oakshott, H. D.


Barter, John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Osborne, C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Page, R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Black, C. W.
Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ok &amp; Leam'gtn)
Pitman, I. J.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hope, Lord John
Powell, J. Enoch


Braine, B. R.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Horobin, Sir Ian
Profumo, J. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, P.
Howard, John (Test)
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Carr, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robertson, Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooke, Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Sharples, R. C.


Cooper, A. E.
Keegan, D.
Shepherd, William


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerby, Capt, H. B.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerr, H. W.
Speir, R. M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kirk, P. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lagden, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Storey, S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Leburn, W. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Doughty, G. J. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Elliott, R. W.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Erroll, F. J.
McAdden, S. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wade, D. W.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, A. J.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, G.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fort, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Woollam, John Victor


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)



Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, P. C.
Marshall, Douglas
Mr. Richard Thompson and


Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus
Mr. Barber


Gower, H. R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move in page 2, line 1, after "chairman", to insert "appointed by the Minister".
I suggest that this Amendment and the Amendment in line 2 be taken together. They are two small, simple drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to make it clear beyond doubt that the chairman and members of the Generating Board are to he appointed by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: In line 2, after "members", insert "so appointed".—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert "and".
I suggest that this Amendment be taken with the next Amendment, in line 22.
These are drafting Amendments consequential upon our having added the first new Clause to the Bill. The effect of adding the Clause is to make unnecessary the words, in Clause 2 (5, c), under which the Generating Board had a duty to pro-wide supplies of electricity for railway undertakers in accordance with Section 49 of the principal Act. That Section has now been repealed and those words are, therefore, neither necessary nor appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 22, leave out from second "Boards" to end of line 25.—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "Britain" to the first "for" in line 35 and to insert:
and may provide supplies of electricity (whether in bulk or otherwise)".
The Amendment has two separate purposes. The first is that it leaves out in Clause 2 (6, b), words which would require that when the Generating Board provides a bulk supply of electricity to anybody outside Britain it should be for distribution or use. We had some discussion about this in Committee, as perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will remember, when we added the words "or use." But, on further consideration, we have reached the conclusion that both the words "for distribution" and the words "or use"

are unnecessary and indeed would be ineffective, because the person who is buying the electricity outside Great Britain is beyond the control of the House of Commons. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to legislate as to what that person might do with the electricity when he has bought it.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will accept that as the truer view of the matter. As far as the Scottish boards are concerned, the matter has already been correctly provided for in another context.
Secondly, the Government Amendment gives the Generating Board the power, which the Central Electricity Authority has under Section 1 (1, d) of the 1947 Act, to provide a supply to consumers direct from the grid without selling it first through an area board, but, of the course, the Minister's approval is required.

Mr. Palmer: Has the Minister taken into account the risk to the finances of the area boards that if too many of the large consumers are taken away from them and given to the Generating Board they may be put into financial difficulties?

Mr. Renton: Yes indeed, I was coming to that point. The hon. Member has practically taken the words out of my mouth.
We feel confident that it is necessary to legislate in this way because very few consumers take the supply direct from the grid. They are industrial consumers, apart from the railways, and they happen to require large blocks of power at high voltage. Therefore, it is appropriate that they should take it direct from the grid and not through the area board, where the voltage is broken down.
The second part of the Amendment complies with an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General to consider what could be done to meet a somewhat similar point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), but a separate Amendment to cover my hon. Friend's point was found not to be necessary. It was found to be possible to kill two birds with this one stone.

Sir F. Soskice: We certainly think that the Bill in the form now proposed is preferable to its two previous forms. The


Amendment really reminds us of what was one of the most mystifying debates we had on the Bill. Originally, when it came before the Committee, it contained the words,
… for distribution by that person or body outside Great Britain…
I think that it was the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who asked what that meant.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had a note from the Central Electricity Authority, the contents of which were not conveyed to us, and he added that, drawing on his imagination, he thought that it might mean something. Then he was pressed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who has given the Government so much assistance in the preparation and forward march on this Bill until it has reached its present form, and in a moment of desperation he asked the permission of the Committee to put in the words "or use." We still did not know what that was meant to do.
The Minister now comes here and says that he has discovered that both words do nothing, and therefore he asks the permission of the House to scratch them out. I think the whole House will feel under a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. Apparently the Bill was meaningless, and it remained for the hon. Gentleman to point out to the Government that they were using language which they could not understand and which meant nothing. Striking out language which means nothing is obviously a useful exercise, and we commend the Parliamentary Secretary for embarking upon it and should like to join him in it. We congratulate him on disposing of verbiage which clutters up the Bill and does not add anything to its meaning.

Mr. Renton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I must point out that we have never been in any state of desperation. We have generally been in one of exhilaration, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has contributed a great deal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "electrical plant" and to insert:

anything required by the Generating Board or by any Area Board for purposes of research or development or for the repair or maintenance of their equipment ".
I think I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the next Amendment to page 3, line 5, is consequential upon this one, unless you would prefer us to take them separately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: They can be taken together.

Mr. Maudling: I will endeavour then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to explain the two Amendments.
The effect that they will have is to confine the powers of the Generating Board in respect of manufacture to manufacturing anything required by it or by the area boards for research, development, repair or maintenance. This is, broadly, a limitation of the manufacturing powers of the Board, though to a small extent it is an extension, and I will try to explain why.
The Bill as drafted enables the Generating Board to manufacture for use in this country its own plant. The Board does not do so, of course, but if the Minister agreed to a capital programme of the type necessary it would enable the Board to manufacture its own plant. This Clause restricts its manufacture of plant to the purpose I have already described. However, it extends the power of the Board to some extent in that it says the Board shall be able to manufacture anything without limitation required by itself or by an area board for the purpose of research, development, repair and maintenance. I think it will be generally agreed that this is a sensible way to tackle the question. One should not restrict it to plant, but should let the Generating Board or the area boards make anything they need for repair and maintenance work.
There was a good deal of discussion on this matter during the Committee stage, and many varying opinions were expressed. I think that there was general agreement with the proposition that if the Board is to maintain its equipment, it must have the power of manufacture necessary to maintain it. I do not anticipate that there will be any disagreement in the House to this Amendment in so far as it deals with research, development, repair and maintenance. I think that the disagreement will be with the limitation


of the power at present contained in the Bill to manufacture electrical plant as part of its initial capital equipment.
Of course, the Bill as drafted does not give the Generating Board power to manufacture for export, but it does give power to manufacture for home consumption—in other words, for its own requirements—because the electricity authorities are, practically speaking, the predominant consumers of electrical plant.
6.15 p.m.
I think that I can analyse the arguments for and against this matter on these lines. It has been argued that the nationalised authority should be restricted in the way set out in the Amendment for several reasons. First, it is argued that nationalised industries are set up by Act of Parliament to carry out certain limited purposes. It is a normal thing for private enterprise, embarking on one form of manufacture, to spread into something quite different.
During the Committee stage I gave an example which my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinehingbrooke) found somewhat frivolous. I cannot imagine why. It was actually that of a firm which started by manufacturing polish and finished predominantly as a manufacturer of containers and metal goods of all kinds. That is a normal development in the realm of private enterprise. However it is argued, and rightly, that this is not what should happen in the case of the nationalised industries. They should not have powers which would enable them to spread themselves beyond the initial purposes for which Parliament created them.
Secondly, it is argued that there is no need for these powers of manufacture because the existing industry in this country is capable of meeting all the manufacturing requirements of the nationalised industry for electrical plant.
Thirdly, it is argued that competition, should it arise, between the nationalised industry and private industry, might well be on an unfair basis because the nationalised industry can obtain its capital on easier terms than private industry can obtain its capital. Therefore, it is argued that such competition might be on an unfair basis.
Fourthly, it is argued that we must remember not only the importance of the home market for heavy electrical plant but the tremendous importance of the export market. In current conditions—and this is a serious argument—exporting electrical plant means being satisfied with exiguous profit margins in many cases. Consequently, to maintain their export position in a competitive market, it is argued that the home industry must have a secure base of home demand from which to operate. It is further argued that this might be undermined if the industry which is working at home and abroad is facing competition from the nationalised industry which concentrates only on the relatively easier home market, and has no power in the Bill to go beyond that and to export.

Mr. Palmer: Has the Minister any knowledge of the electrical manufacturing industry having complained, either to the Central Electricity Authority or to his own Department, that these powers have been used or are likely to be used?

Mr. Nabarro: They have complained to me, though. That is what matters.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot recall whether the manufacturers have complained to my Department, but certainly not only one, but several of my hon. Friends have represented this case. What I am trying to set out is the case that is made for restricting these manufacturing powers in the way which we are proposing to do.

Mr. du Cann: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? Is it not unlikely that manufacturers would complain to a Minister who, it is known, would use his powers, such as they are, with discretion? Surely any complaint at this moment would be most unlikely.

Mr. Maudling: I do not follow the point of my hon. Friend's intervention. I am trying to deal with the arguments laid before the Committee and the Government on these matters.
To quote the contrary argument, it is argued that these powers of manufacture should be retained primarily to protect the industry against exploitation, and to enable it to protect itself if it feels that it cannot get the plant on proper and on fair terms. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they regard this as a reserve power which, in practice.


would be unlikely to be used. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), in the course of the Committee stage, said that if he and his right hon. Friends intended to nationalise the industry they would not go about it in this way, which is an interesting statement of intention.
The argument against the Amendment is that of reserve powers—that it is necessary for the Generating Board to have these powers in reserve in case it finds that it cannot get the plant it needs for its purposes on reasonable terms. The counter argument to that is twofold: firs, that the situation is changed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act which fundamentally alters the situation in which it could perhaps have been argued that the manufacturers could gang up against the Authority. It is argued that the position is fundamentally changed by that Act. Secondly, it is pointed out that in fact there is nothing to prevent the Authority buying plant from suppliers abroad if it is not satisfied with the quality or price offered by the home manufacturer.
Those are the arguments, as I understand them, in the opposing directions: the first four arguments I put in favour of restricting the activities in the manufacturing field of the Generating Board to what is set out in the Amendment, and the contrary argument—protection against exploitation—which is countered both by the possibility of imports and, more important, by the existence of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act.
These arguments have been considered by the Government with care, and my noble Friend came to the conclusion that, on balance, the right thing was to include this Amendment which restricts the Generating Board to manufacturing for its own purposes or for the purpose of any area board anything it requires for research and development or for repairs or maintenance.
I have set out as fairly and fully as I can the arguments on both sides. I believe that they are arguments which balance one against the other and are serious arguments in either direction. After considerable thought, consideration and study by the Government of the relative issues, we have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do in this case is to submit this Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: The Paymaster-General has made an extremely gallant effort to dissemble his profound sense of humiliation. He knows that my hon. Friends on this side of the House are extremely kind-hearted, or he would not even have tried it out. I think, however, that his effort failed, and this is about as humiliating a spectacle as the House has been treated to for some time.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated in a rather embarrassed fashion the trite and well-worn argument to which we listened in Committee from those hon. Members who have subscribed their names to the Amendment in order to add insult to injury. One has only to look at the names on the Order Paper. Headed by the name of the right hon. Gentleman, there follow the names of all the hon. Members who formed a kind of pressure group—I do not say this disparagingly; they are quite entitled to do so—which worried the life out of the Minister.
He repeated their arguments—arguments not in any sense new and not in any sense arguments which we were not completely used to and entirely conversant with; arguments which he himself knew and must have listened to, and I dare say used, in the past. He repeated them in the hope of persuading us that he had really changed his mind. I do not say that offensively to him. I know that Ministers do get into scrapes, especially when a Government is obviously creaking, groaning and tottering to its fall as this Government is.
It is really rather extraordinary, and may I add rather shocking, to listen to what the Minister said today and to contrast it with what he said in emphatic terms—terms of great emphasis and the utmost confidence—when he resisted this same Amendment during the Committee stage. It is, I think, within the rules of order to quote the actual words he used. In resisting precisely the same proposals to which he has capitulated today, he said:
It seems to me to be one of the inherent powers of any commercial undertaking that it should have the power, if it so wishes, and a case can be made for it, to be in a position to manufacture the tools of its own trade. Constantly, in private industry, we see big companies making their own capital equipment and setting up their own workshops for the purpose.


Then he said:
 I think it will be very difficult, in principle and on a proper approach to the nationalised industries, to take away from them in all circumstances all power to manufacture their own plant.
Then, in order that there should be no doubt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] If hon. Members will wait one moment, if they can contain themselves—they should remember that we are not in Committee now—I will proceed. In order to remove all doubt about what he meant by that phrase, the right hon. Gentleman re-emphasised it a little later in his speech when he said:
Our attitude to this matter reflects our attitude to the nationalised industries generally.
I suppose that "our attitude" means the attitude of the Government who are supposed to be in control of the party opposite—
We must give them the maximum degree of commercial freedom in order that they may work as efficiently as possible, and it is very difficult to see how we are to give the proper commercial freedom if we do not leave the Board free to manufacture its own equipment." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th February, 1957; c. 76–7.]
Those were his words. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Read on."] I do not want to read the whole speech. It is a most admirable speech, as the Minister's speeches always are. May I make my point and then, no doubt, other hon. Members who seek to defend the Minister, who seek to rush to his rescue, however hard they badgered him before, may speak? I agree that he needs support now. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may be able to help him as a kind of counterpoise to the harm he did before.
I wish to make the point that there is the Minister in charge of the Bill, presumably having thought out with his advisers what he considered to be in the public interest, presumably thinking that he was, I have no doubt, honestly and sincerely interpreting the view of himself and his colleagues with regard to what he describes as the proper approach to the nationalised industries. He, having taken a formal stand on that matter and —in two passages of his speech which are quite unequivocal and emphatic as to his view—having resisted the proposals, now accepts them.
In resisting the Amendment he says he understood that certain arguments were propounded and that the case was

well balanced, and now, as an act of graciousness, without compulsion and on his own momentum, he comes down in favour of the proposal he so contumaciously rejected before. This is not the sort of conduct we expect from a Minister.

Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it is not right for the leaders of a party or a Government to have second thoughts? May I suggest that this is rather a bad day for him to suggest that particular line?

Sir F. Soskice: I think it is a particularly good day for me to suggest that, because I have got the most perfect example of a vacillating, weak Minister giving way to pressure from behind that I have ever come across. I say that advisedly. If the Minister really thinks that he can come to the House and ask hon. Members on this side to accept it from him that having nicely balanced contrary arguments he, as a result of mature and profound consideration, on the whole thinks now that he would prefer to adopt the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), he is really asking us to believe far more than we are prepared to swallow.
The fact is that he has been bludgeoned by his own supporters since the Committee stage, and he has given in to them. He has got not a shadow of pretence to try to defend himself from that charge. That was the argument he advanced before; these are the arguments which he now says, having been deployed before in Committee when he rejected them, have now ultimately convinced him.
What is new in them? Did he not know them before? Did he discover, when listening entranced to the passages in the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that there was some hidden truth which the hon. Member had then revealed to him? Of course he did not. He knew perfectly well what the hon. Member was going to say. We could all have written his speech for him. We could not have delivered it with quite the same verve, which we all enjoy, but we could certainly have written it down on paper for the hon. Member, and so could


the Minister. The pressure group to which he has capitulated added nothing to his knowledge on this subject.
6.30 p.m.
The fact is that the Minister, in duty bound to the public interest which he serves, took a stand on the matter. He considered it—I hope he considered it—with his advisers, and he decided what he thought was the proper form that the Bill should take and what powers should be vested in the Generating Board. The fact is, and the Minister cannot disguise it, that some of his own supporters—the most noisy of them, those who run round fastest, those who go farthest in worrying the life out of him—have got at him. I do not mean that in any unpleasant sense. Because they have brought pressure upon him, as they are perfectly entitled to do, the Minister has retreated from his stance. If ever there was a case of a weak Minister giving in to importunate followers, this is that case.
I should like to put this question to the Minister. With all the high reputation that he bears in the House—and, may I add in perfect sincerity, on both sides—does he really think that he can properly occupy the Government Front Bench in view of what he has done? Who are the Government today? Are they the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his friends, or are they the Paymaster-General and his colleagues? [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is the Leader of the Opposition?"] There is no doubt about who is the Leader of the Opposition. What is doubtful is who controls the party opposite. Evidence is beginning to appear that the people who control the party opposite are little pressure gangs which are slowly battering the Government to bits, and the sooner they recognise that fact and retire from office the better.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), because my intention was to confine myself to the probable effect of the Amendment. I do not entirely welcome it, although for reasons quite different from those of the Opposition. I have never made a secret of the fact that I do not believe that it is necessary

for this nationalised undertaking to have any power to manufacture plant, with, perhaps, the one exception of small parts that may be necessary for urgent running repairs.
I have never been in the least impressed by the arguments either that the various undertakings possessed those powers before they were nationalised or that the private industry would insist on similar powers in similar circumstances. It seems to me to be a complete non, sequitur to argue from that that similar powers must be transmitted to a great State-owned monopoly such as the one we are discussing. It is not accurate to describe it as a normal commercial enterprise, and nothing is gained by pretending that it is.
As was pointed out in Committee, in private business one has the sanction of failure and bankruptcy against imprudent activities. In industries which are subsisting on public funds, that sanction is absent and there is a risk of considerable waste of money if expensive new activities are indulged in. If, however, we must give the Generating Board some form of permissive manufacturing powers, I would have greatly preferred to see them hedged round with the sort of safeguard which my right hon. Friend proposed in Committee.
I, too, would like to quote from the Committee stage. Speaking during the third Sitting, my right hon. Friend said that he was hoping
 on Report to put down a Government Amendment limiting the power of manufacture of generating plant in this way, that the Board shall not exercise the power unless it is satisfied that the available facilities for obtaining plant required at a reasonable price are or may become inadequate."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th February. 1957 c. 110.]
I would have thought—I say this with great respect to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friends who have added their names to the Amendment—that that would have been an extremely effective safeguard against any rash enterprise by the publicly-owned industry. It has been hinted by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport that the new form of safeguard proposed in the Amendment owes its inspiration to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who certainly played a leading part in the discussion of this matter.
I rise to place on record my firm belief that the Amendment in its present form would pave the way to the very thing which my hon. Friend wishes to avoid. I believe that if there is any justice or gratitude, his descendants may live to see a statue erected to him as the progenitor of the State-owned heavy electrical manufacturing industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hen. and gallant Friend give way?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should like to develop my reasons for making that remark. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands a great deal about the workings of private industry, but I am not so sure that he understands the things that activate the minds of people who are employed in big public concerns and paid from the public payroll. It is a mistake to suppose that people in public departments or publicly-owned industries are in any way influenced in their activities by political considerations. On the whole, I think, they are intensely bored by them. Therefore, if there is to be an urge by this publicly-owned industry to go into the manufacturing business—and I believe there will be an urge—it will not come from political considerations but from what is commonly called empire-building.
Perhaps I may enlarge on that a little. In every public concern, as in private concerns, one finds a certain number of men of exceptional ability and energy. Those men will always he seeking new outlets for their imagination, their energy and their ability. Hitherto, in the particular case of the electrical industry, that outlet has been found in the fact that the industry has been rapidly expanding. I firmly believe that the reason no advantage has so far been taken of the permission to manufacture electrical plant was due not to any restraint on the part of hon. Members opposite when they were in power, but simply to the fact that the people engaged in the industry were too busy to bother about it.
There may, however, come a time when this expansion slows down and stops. Nobody can say that that will not happen, however unlikely it may seem at the moment. It is when that times comes that I see this provision, in its present form, being used as the thin end of a very large wedge indeed.
I can imagine at some future time, when one of the younger of my hon. Friends, perhaps, is Minister of Power, he will be approached and be told that there is a prospect of a new and much more advanced form of generating plant. He will probably be told that it is based partly on work, say, from Czechoslovakia or somewhere, and also on a certain amount of work done by the Ministry of Supply, and it will be suggested to him that the time has come for the Generating Board to manufacture the plant.
He will doubtless be told that there are a hundred and one reasons why it would be unwise to entrust the task to private industry. He will be reminded that a certain power station which has been authorised and begun is no longer needed so urgently and, therefore, why not complete it in a new experimental form, even though that may involve spending, say, £1 million in constructing the necessary manufacturing plant round it.
We are all familiar with what is apt to happen on those occasions. Five years will pass, £10 million will have been spent. A wonderful new station will then be ready to go on the grid and there will be a great ceremony with masses of mutual congratulations and everyone will say what a marvellous job has been done. But let no one imagine that the manufacturing plant will then be closed clown. Nothing of the kind will happen. A lot of capital will have been sunk in it and many people will be working there. The Minister will be told that it is intended to build five more stations of a slightly different—

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I prefer to develop my argument. I dare say my hon. Friend will catch your eye later. Sir.
I was saying that the Minister will be told that a number of other stations, each slightly more advanced than the one before, are to be built. One of the curious things when Government Departments go into manufacturing industry is that everything made is always a prototype. That is one of the reasons they are so very expensive. This will be the way that a publicly-owned manufacturing industry will come into being, through the operation of this very Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What greatly disturbs me is that this is something which can happen just as easily under a Conservative Government as under a Socialist or any other kind of Government, because the process by which it will come about has nothing whatever to do with politics or political philosophy.
Those, briefly, are the reasons I mistrust the Amendment in its present form. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will consider a slight change in the wording of the Amendment, with the object, on the one hand, of reducing the emphasis at present laid on research and development, and, on the other, imposing in some form a requirement on the Board that nothing whatsoever is to be made which can be done more cheaply by private industry.

Mr. Joseph Grimond: I have much sympathy with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). From time to time, I detected signs of his previous naval training showing through. On the point of substance, which was argued at some length in Committee, of whether the Generating Board should be allowed to manufacture plant or not, my own view would be influenced very considerably by how the Board raised its capital. I agree that at present it cannot be considered a purely commercial undertaking. If it raised its capital in the free market, there would be a much stronger case for saying that it should be allowed to manufacture its own electrical plant.
My principal reason for intervening is to ask some questions about what the Amendment means. We all know that in fact the Generating Board and the Minister will behave according to the canons of common sense and will impose some restraint on the sort of process outlined by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East. Nevertheless, Parliament has a duty when it writes something into a Bill to see that it says what it means and does not rely on the interpretation of a board or a Minister.
At present, the Generating Board is limited to the power to manufacture electrical plant and electrical plant only. If

the Amendment is accepted, it will be able to manufacture anything it or any area board requires for the purposes of research, development, repair or maintenance of its equipment. Under that, it could certainly manufacture a large nuclear research station. It could manufacture screw-drivers. It could manufacture steel. All those, strictly speaking, can be said to be matters into which it was entitled to go under the heading of "for the purposes of research".

Mr. Nabarro: For its own use.

Mr. Grimond: It is then said that it could manufacture anything required for the repair and maintenance of its equipment. That seems to be exceptionally wide. Goodness knows what is required in the maintenance and repair of an electric power station. I should have thought that practically everything one could think of would be justified. If that was not enough, under subsection (7, b) the Board is empowered—I may be wrong about this and, if so, no doubt the Minister will correct me—to hire out electrical plant and electrical fittings which, strictly speaking, remain the Board's equipment and property.
6.45 p.m.
We therefore have a further type of equipment for which the Board is empowered to manufacture anything which is needed for repair or maintenance.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister shakes his head, but why not? If the Board hires out a refrigerator, it still belongs to the Board. It is still electrical equipment, and surely the Board is entitled to manufacture anything which is required for its development, repair or maintenance. I do not set myself up as an expert on interpretation, but if I am wrong, I should be glad if the Minister would say so. It seems to me that the Amendment will give the Board wider powers than before.

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member looks at the second of the two Amendments, he will see that the power of manufacture is restricted to subsection (7, a).

Mr. Grimond: I am talking about paragraph (a). That will give the Board the right to manufacture anything for


research or development, or repair of its equipment. I may be totally mistaken, but I think that the only safeguard we have is the good sense of the Board—which I agree will be a safeguard—and, ultimately, the Minister, but I cannot believe that it is right for Parliament to leave the matter in this state.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member was not a member of the Standing Committee in which long discussions took place on the contradistinction within the terms of the 1947 Statute between fittings, on the one hand, which include anything from a refrigerator to a ceiling rose, and plant on the other hand. The hon. Member's introduction of the suggestion that refrigerators might be made by the nationalised authority is quite wrong.

Mr. Grimond: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I did not say that. I said that refrigerators might be the property of the Board and might therefore be its equipment within the meaning of this Clause. If they were its equipment, the Board would be entitled to manufacture any, thing for their repair or maintenance.
I was not on the Standing Committee and it may be that this was cleared up. As I understand it, the duty of the House is to produce a Bill which can be read without reference to what went on in Standing Committee. I am only too willing to be told by the Minister that my points are entirely wrong and that when I say, if the Amendment is passed, the Board will have the power to manufacture the most elaborate instruments for research, I am talking nonsense. I may be, hut, on the face of it, that is the power we shall give the Board. I should be very glad—and there may be other hon. Members in difficulty about this—if the Minister would tell us exactly what the Amendment means if it does not mean that the Board is given very wide powers indeed.

Mr. Ray Mawby: As I spoke in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in Standing Committee, I certainly want to register my thanks to the Minister for moving as far as this.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said that my right hon. Friend had apparently changed his mind. That is surely something which all hon. Members like. All hon. Members

appreciate it when a Minister makes a statement in Committee at the beginning of the discussion and then, at the end of it, says that after listening to the debate he is convinced that there are certain points of which he was not aware at the beginning and that he is, therefore, prepared to look at the matter and to put down an Amendment on Report, provided that we are prepared to withdraw our Amendment. That is what happened in this case.
I feel that this is carrying out what we all understand as proper democracy, namely, the reaching of a conclusion by discussion, and the feeling that whenever we elect a Government we do not necessarily expect them to carry on regardless of what matters may be discussed in the House or in Committee. It is almost a case of the pot calling the kettle black to talk about pressure groups forcing the Minister to take action with which he does not particularly agree.

Mr. Palmer: Is the process that the hon. Gentleman is describing what the Manchester Guardian refers to as "Ministers given a real pasting"?

Mr. Mawby: I do not always accept every word that the Manchester Guardian says. I do not regard all its arguments as facts. There have been many times when I have violently disagreed with points that it has put forward, and on this matter I claim the right to disagree with it.
In my speech in Committee I made it quite obvious, although I am not a member of one of the so-called pressure groups, that I feel that this is a matter of basic Conservative philosophy, and I believe that if we accept the Amendment we shall be doing a first-class job of work in making certain that the Bill embraces a proper Conservative philosophy.

Mr. Austen Albu: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has now given us the real reason for the Minister's retreat. It is a piece of dogma which the more extreme dogmatic Members of the party opposite have forced the Minister to accept and for which there are no arguments whatsoever from the point of view of public policy.
To say that during the Committee stage the Minister heard so many new arguments that he was persuaded, after much consideration, to change his mind


is absolute nonsense—and we all know it. No arguments were adduced in Committee of which the Minister was not already aware. All that happened was that the Government became rockier and rockier for other reasons, and felt that they had to make some concessions. They accordingly made those which they thought would do the least political harm and would be least harmful to the immediate interests of the country. In doing so, they have shown their own incapacity, the Minister's weakness, and the extremely weak position of the Government at the present time.
Leaving aside the question of Conservative dogma, it is difficult to see why a board should not have these powers. I would not object to some conditions being imposed along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I do not accept the views of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that a board should be forced to raise upon the market all its finance for generating and distributing purposes. I should not object if a board were to go into the manufacture of plant on a large scale, if its relevant accounts were upon a separate basis and the finance were raised in the way suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Party.
As far as I can see, we are discussing the matter without reference to a number of factors. The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) drew attention to an interesting development which he thought might arise from the Clause as it will appear if the Amendment is agreed to. As I listened to him, I could not see what was wrong with the possibility to which he referred. If the largest consumer of electrical plant, in the course of operating and generating electricity, develops ideas for its generation or transmission, I see no reason why it should not be allowed to go further and manufacture it.
What is it to do? I presume that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would like it to hand over these ideas for profitable exploitation by private enterprise. If it does develop such ideas—I do not think that is very likely, but the technology of electrical generation is moving so fast that it might—I

see no reason why it should not be allowed to manufacture the plant, at any rate initially. The very process referred to by the hon. and gallant Member seems to me to be an admirable one, because there are frequent occasions upon which the ideas for the development of plant originate with the users.
This applies to the machine tool industry, where the present situation is that all the decent tools which are not imported are manufactured by the users, because the industry is unable to supply them. I do not suggest that that is the case in the electrical generating industry, because the plant manufacturing side is technically efficient. Nevertheless, a board might have an idea for a new development, especially in nuclear power plant.
We must remember that, however efficient the manufacturing industry may be, it has recently come under the most severe condemnation from the Monopolies Commission, and it seems fair to draw the inference that this condemnation is based upon the fact that expansion in the industry is not going forward as quickly as the requirements of the home and export markets warrant.
Secondly, when considering the question of unfair competition, and especially the question of the position of the electricity boards and the way they raise their funds, we have also to remember the price arrangements which exist in the electricity plant manufacturing industry, which have to some extent the same sort of effect of protecting the manufacturers from competition, at any rate among themselves.

Mr. Arthur Holt: The hon. Member will remember that Lord Citrine did not disapprove of these restrictive practices.

Mr. Albu: I am reminded that although Lord Citrine did not disapprove of these restrictive practices, he had power to manufacture plant himself if he wished to do so. Having had the report of the Monopolies Commission, we are now proposing to remove from Lord Citrine or his successor the power to manufacture plant.
No great issue is involved here. There is not really any likelihood that the boards will go in for large-scale manufacture of plant, but it is monstrous that, with a Bill and an industry of this importance, and upon a matter of such


public importance—when we are dealing, on the one hand, with a public generating and distributing monopoly and, on the other, with a number of vast firms not subject to normal competitive conditions and having among themselves extensive price-fixing arrangements—and when the practical possibilities are so extremely limited, a small and ignorant pressure group should have forced a responsible Minister to make a change of this sort.
There are no real arguments for it, except, as the hon. Member said, on the grounds of Conservative dogma. If the country is to go on being ruled upon the basis of Conservative dogma we shall all go down to perdition. It is quite impossible. We have had government by Conservative dogma for the last four or five years, and it has led us into so many disastrous mistakes at home and abroad that it is time, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, for Ministers who are prepared to give way to this sort of pressure to get out.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has taken the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT upon the extensive debates which we had on this topic during the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not propose today to attempt to repeat all the arguments which were deployed by my hon. Friends and myself. I do not think that it would be appropriate to do so. But I resent the hon. Gentleman and a number of his hon. Friends, including the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), suggesting that the Amendment is a result of the malignant thoughts and actions of a minority of hon. Members on this side of the House. That is not so.
A great majority—I have no means of ascertaining what is the majority, but an overwhelming majority—of the Conservative Members in the House support the fact that plant manufacturing rights should not be given to a nationalised undertaking in the special circumstances of the electricity supply industry. I shall not repeat all the reasons which I gave during the Committee stage discussion, but I do not believe that they were other than powerful reasons which are supported by electrical manufacturers outside this House.
I do not think that the Central Electricity Authority feels at all strongly about this matter. The fact is, to put it in its historical perspective, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the hon. Member for Edmonton and the Leader of the Liberal Party did not allude to the terms of the main Act of 1947 wherein the nationalised industry had power to manufacture fittings and it had the power to manufacture plant. What were fittings and what were plant I do not think that the Leader of the Liberal Party has troubled to turn up.

Mr. Grimond: It may be that I mentioned other speeches, but I was not addressing myself to this point. I fail to understand why we should all follow the hon. Member—whose speeches during the Committee stage I have read—merely because he wishes to open this matter again.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is gravely mistaken. I do not want to open the matter again. This is a Government Amendment, to which I added my name.
The question here—I am sure that this is of great importance—is that in 1947 the party opposite gave the nationalised industry the power to manufacture fittings and plant. As I said earlier, fittings, comprised anything from a ceiling rose to a refrigerator. Plant, for the most part, means equipment necessary for the generation of electricity. That is a broad definition of what was included in "plant". When this Bill appeared, the power to manufacture fittings had been taken away.
I explained during the Committee stage, and was supported by every Conservative Member who spoke—with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett)—that I could not see any difference whatever, in principle, between withdrawing the power to manufacture fittings and withdrawing the power to manufacture plant. So far as we are concerned—and no one has challenged me on the point—the two things are exactly the same in principle. If we withdraw one, we should withdraw both.
During the earlier stages of the Bill we noted carefully the influence that powers of this kind could have on the exporting potential of the electrical plant manufacturing firms in this country, were the


powers to manufacture plant exercised by the nationalised authority. I do not believe that the Central Electricity Authority, even if it wanted to, could exercise these powers. It has neither the technical "know-how", nor the plant, nor facilities to do so. It is not versed in plant manufacture and it would take years and years to build that up.
Moreover, the Authority could get the "know-how" and facilities only by drawing away the relatively small pool of highly skilled labour from the plant manufacturing firms concerned with the production of such items as turbo-alternators, large boilers, heavy cable, condensers and power generating equipment of that kind. If it is manifestly impracticable for the nationalised Authority to engage in a form of manufacture of this kind, why write terms into the Bill at all? That is the principal reason which has been given by my hon. Friends and myself for wishing to see the power to manufacture plant taken out of the Bill.
I turn now to the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. It seemed to me that his case was illogical and inconsequential. There are, as I see the position, three groups which one might establish under the general title of electrical plant used by the generating industry. There is the group—by far the largest—of plant which is employed for generating electricity, that is production equipment. Then there is a tiny amount of plant used for research and development purposes, and, from time to time, pieces of equipment may have to be built for repair and maintenance facilities.
But, so far as I am aware—I cannot believe that I shall be challenged about this—the nationalised Authority would never set out by itself to build a turbo-alternator or a large power house boiler, or a nuclear reactor, or an atomic power station. It does not want to do that kind of thing. There are private enterprise firms to do so for the nationalised Authority.
The Authority is very unlikely to want to build any large piece of research or development equipment. Neither is it likely to wish to develop atomic power stations. It regards that kind of thing as the prerogative of the Atomic Energy Authority, working in conjunction with

private enterprise firms. Surely, therefore, when my hon. and gallant Friend argues that what is now written into this Amendment means that, in effect, there is to be—I think I have this term correctly—" empire building "; that it will start off building pieces of research and experimental equipment and spend £1 million on it, and add to it further and further until it has spent £10 million, that is nonsense.
In fact, the Authority may, from time to time, desire to build a small piece of equipment for research or development or repair and maintenance purposes. That is the only reason why those words are written into this Amendment. I confess that in the Amendments which I moved during the Committee stage I did not put in the words, "repair or maintenance." It was the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) who raised that point with me. I agreed that it was an omission on my part, and that if the Central Electricity Authority, and the old supply companies before nationalisation, had always made plant and equipment for repair and maintenance of their existing generating facilities, it might be wise, to make the Amendment perfectly clear, to include those words.
Therefore, the Government Amendment on the Notice Paper simply means—I cannot believe that my hon. and gallant Friend seriously challenges its meaning—that the nationalised Authority cannot manufacture plant for production and generation of electricity. It cannot do that. But it can, if it wishes, make those sundry and relatively small items of plant for research and development and for repair or maintenance. So far as those words have any meaning, I should have thought they would be accurately interpreted, and I cannot believe that there will be any quarrel in the future about what is the precise position of the nationalised industry.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: There is nothing about size of plant in the Amendment.

Mr. Nabarro: No, there is nothing about size, but I cannot believe that my hon. and gallant Friend has an extensive knowledge of the industry if he believes that the Authority is even qualified or able to build large pieces of equipment like turbo-alternators.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What is to prevent it from buying a factory and developing plant for experimental reasons?

Mr. Nabarro: Because the great repository of manufacturing skill and knowledge is in the possession of the firms who, traditionally, have been associated with the manufacture of these classes of heavy equipment ever since electricity was invented in this country. It is very unlikely those manufacturing facilities would be usurped by a nationalised authority, especially when it has no skilled labour to handle such processes.
It has been suggested by the right hon, and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and by other hon. Members opposite, that my right hon. Friend gave way to a pressure group on this side of the House. I wrote down a number of the highly-coloured expressions used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He suggested that my right hon. Friend had "vacillated." He suggested that my right hon. Friend had capitulated to the pressure group led by myself. Nothing of the kind. The overwhelming majority of Conservative Members supports my views.
As I said at the outset of my speech in Committee, this is a matter of fundamental political philosophy. It is not a minor issue. I would expect every Socialist Member to believe that the nationalised authority ought to manufacture plant. I would expect every Conservative Member, except my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East—I make an exception of him —to oppose powers of that kind. It is for this—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not know why my hon. Friend should except me. My point is that I do not think that the Amendment is as effective as it should be.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not going to argue that point all over again. I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend is suffering from some sort of aberration in this matter, and that overwhelmingly the Conservative side of the House believes that this is a well-framed and desirable Amendment.
My right hon. Friend has behaved in a perfectly constitutional manner and with the greatest propriety. He has listened to

reasoned and objective arguments from my hon. Friends and myself. I gave them in the Committee and I say truthfully that I accepted my right hon. Friend's compromise—as he put—it during the Committee stage. I said that I would transfer the row to the Floor of the House on Report. Fortunately, we have not had a row because a Government Amendment, in proper form, has appeared on the Notice Paper. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his prescience and the manner in which he has moved towards the majority opinion expressed by the members of the Conservative Party. We hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Socialist Party with the appreciation and approbation that it deserves.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is in a very benevolent mood, which contrasts very strongly with the arrogant mood which he adopted in the Standing Committee when the matter was being discussed. He can afford to be, because he has achieved his triumph and naturally, in the circumstances, he is extremely kind to his right hon. Friend. Of the Minister, I merely say that he is very familiar with the arguments, as he should be, because he has used them both ways.
This right—if I may use the expression which the right hon. Gentleman himself used in Committee —of the electricity supply industry to manufacture the tools of the trade, seemed to us, and I think to wide circles in the trade, to have several sensible justifications. Most of those have been argued and I do not want to go over them in great detail.
First is the common human justification that if an individual or an association of persons, a public corporation in this case, wants to make something for itself it should not be forced to buy it. The second justification, that has been used frequently, is that it is a protection against high prices and monopoly practices—the Monopolies Commission has not yet dealt with this matter—in the electricity supply industry. The third justification is that if a public corporation has been given a job to do it is foolish and wrong to confine it in respect of the way in which it shall carry out its duties. That was the argument which the right hon. Gentleman used in Committee and which has been used since in the columns of the


Economist under the heading "Fetters on Nationalisation".
Of course, the fourth justification is that this is a traditional power in the electricity supply industry. In the course of our proceedings in Committee I quoted words which were used in 1947 by the then Sir Arnold Gridley, a very respected Conservative Member of the House. He said:
We do not seek to deprive the Minister of the right to seek to embark upon the manufacture of plant. We recognise that we are probably not in a very strong position to do so in view of the powers existing in some of the Acts on the Statute Book at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1947; c. 580.]
That came from an eminent, responsible, and experienced Member of the House of Commons at that time.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He changed his mind.

Mr. Palmer: Many people have changed their minds. Since then we have had ten years—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Sir Arnold Gridley, now Lord Gridley, made an individual speech in the debate at that time which was not followed by the Conservative Party. There was a division against a Conservative Party Amendment.

Mr. Palmer: We need not bandy words with the noble Lord on this matter. If he will look at the record of the Standing Committee at that time he will find that the Conservative Party, led then by Mr. Hudson, as he was at that time, did not oppose this power. The noble Lord must look up the record for himself.
Since then, we have had ten years' experience, and there has not been any trouble between the supply side and the manufacturing side. There has not even been a ripple on the waters. If the British electrical manufacturers had any complaint they have not expressed it to the Minister or to the Central Electricity Authority. They have had no reason to, because they have had some very extensive orders from the Central Electricity Board during those years, representing altogether—I have the figure here—about 10,000 megawatts of installed plant, which must be, in cash terms, a fantastic sum of money.
7.15 p.m.
It is interesting to note that the Herbert Committee chided the Central Electricity Authority for its loyalty to the British manufacturers saying it was too patriotic and that it should on occasion desert the British electrical manufacturers and go overseas. In page 114, paragraph 427, the Herbert Committee's report states that B.E.A.M.A. had said:
… with regard to the purchasing arrangements of the Central Authority for capital plant, the electrical manufacturing industry considers that it enjoys a satisfactory degree of co-operation and assistance from the Authority through the existing system '.
If the manufacturers had any complaints they would have expressed them. I can understand that, because the manufacturers had, throughout that period, a common price system to assist them. That common price system has been condemned by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Nabarro: But approved by Lord Citrine.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member has no doubt read the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the matter, and he will know what the Central Electricity Authority had to say about the common price system. There has been no evidence whatsoever that this residual power of manufacture has been or would be used to undermine the manufacturing side of the industry.
Then why this attack? We had two Sittings of the Standing Committee during which the matter was discussed, and we have had some bullying—that is the word to describe it—of the Minister which has been reported in rather colourful language in one of the newspapers. I will take that no further, except to recall that the noble Lord the Minister of Power had his arm twisted in a commitee and he was not allowed to escape by pleading that he was not a politician but only a businessman.
We have had, in addition, the humiliation of the Paymaster-General; he has been made to eat his own words in public and he does not seem to have enjoyed the meal. That has been my impression. The reason for the attack is, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby)—who is not here—and the hon. Member for Kidderminster said in Committee, simply the narrowest considerations of Tory Party doctrine.
The Paymaster-General, speaking for his noble Friend in another place, has run away completely. He has to make a public justification here. What is left is really nothing. I cannot accept what the Leader of the Liberal Party said about the exact meaning of the proposed Amendment. In my view, what has been left is nothing. Research and development? Well, one would suppose that the Authority had the right to carry on processes for research and development. In respect of repair and maintenance, let us hope that the electricity industry is entitled to make things to repair and maintain the plant and keep it going. One would expect it. It really amounts to nothing at all.
This Amendment is, as has been said, a triumph for the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his pressure group.

Mr. Angus Maude: The hon. Member is perfectly correct about what he says is left, but what I cannot quite understand is what he wants put in as well. We have not heard from any hon. Member opposite today what else they want. The hon. Member has just told us that this right has always been there before, but has never been used and he cannot believe that it will be used. What does he want it for?

Mr. Palmer: The answer is that we wanted the Bill to be framed in the way in which the 1947 Act was framed in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We are arguing that this change is not in any sense fair to those in the industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and it can be abused. I can assure hon. Members opposite that numbers of practical engineers in the industry regard this as an act of spite at the instigation of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend have shown extreme weakness, weakness which in our view is not worthy of them, in giving way to this kind of pressure.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that there is much I can add to the summary of the arguments I gave when I moved this Amendment. So far, the speeches which have been made have been rather inclined, I thought, to minimise the effect of this proposal. In fact, I think that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has said that it did not seem to him to matter very much. I have given the

reasons which prompted the Government to put forward the Amendment and hope that the House will be prepared to accept it, or, if the Opposition will not accept it, to divide on it.
There were one or two points raised to which I should reply. In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), I do not think that, having studied these words again, the powers of manufacture go anything like so wide as they think. I do not think that, in practice, the fears that they expressed would be realised. It is true that this Amendment gives complete power to manufacture anything for research purposes, and I think that that is right, but when we come to the question of drafting a thing of this kind we cannot distinguish between small things and big things. Similarly, I think that the power to manufacture what the boards need to repair and maintain in their equipment cannot allow the manufacture of refrigerators, as I think was suggested.

Mr. Grimond: All I said was that refrigerators might be part of the equipment of the boards and, if so, they could manufacture anything for their repair and maintenance.

Mr. Maudling: Refrigerators are fittings and they are prohibited from making fittings. If refrigerators were part of their stock in trade they could have a repair lorry to carry them around, but that does not arise as they are not allowed to manufacture refrigerators.
I thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) enunciated a most peculiar constitutional doctrine. He appeared to say that it was wrong for a Government—and, I suppose, equally wrong for an Opposition party—to change its mind, He went on to say that it is even more wrong to change its mind when the matter is important or if asked to do so by its own supporters. That seemed a strange constitutional doctrine, which, hope, he does not intend to carry into practice at a meeting which, I understand, is to take place later this week. The difference between the two sides of the House on this matter is that we manage to reach agreement, but I understand that the right hon. and learned


Member and his hon. Friends were saved, at this morning's meeting, by the bell. I must repudiate the argument. I believe that the Government are entitled to change their minds and to yield to argument when eloquently expressed, as it has been on this occasion.

Mr. du Cann: I shall make a very short speech, but, as I have put my name to this Amendment and did not speak on the matter in Committee, I should like briefly to state my reasons for supporting the Amendment. I can put those reasons shortly by saying that I believe that the arguments in its favour are good, while I believe that the arguments which I have heard expressed against it are wholly bad. The most astonishing thing was to hear from the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) that he did not know why this power was wanted.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the hon. Member was a member of the Standing Committee and should know that we argued throughout that these were reserve powers, residual powers, to be used in certain emergencies if the industry was not getting the kind of service it wanted from the manufacturers. That has been made perfectly clear to him on many occasions.

Mr. du Cann: That was certainly clear in the Committee, but it was not made clear this afternoon. There was a vacuum when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) posed the question. I will come to the question of emergencies in a moment.
On the question of the power to manufacture for processes of research, I absolutely understand the fears which have been expressed, but I believe they have been greatly over-emphasised. On the other hand, we should look generously on the activities of the area boards and the Generating Board and encourage them to go into research to the maximum possible extent because that would be to the ultimate good of the industry as a whole.
I would not wish the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) to accuse me of putting dogma first, or of saying that it was most important if I put it first in my speech, but one of the reasons—perhaps not the main reason—I opposed the power to manufacture plant is that I

believe that the potential manufacture of plant would be an extension of nationalisation and, therefore, wholly bad. Nationalisation is unpopular in the country. I take it that the party opposite does not want to say, "We want to bring in a special Act of Parliament to manufacture plant", but would prefer to achieve nationalisation by back door methods. We note that and I think that the country will note that, too.
Rather than dealing in invective I wish to examine the arguments for and against the manufacture of plant. One of the arguments of the hon. Member for Cleveland has been that it has always been like that and that these powers are traditional. I see the hon. Member is nodding. This is not the first time I have had to twit him or pull the leg of the Labour Party, because it seems astonishing that they should put themselves forward as champions of tradition and privilege. Surely tradition is a strange bedfellow for a Socialist.

Mr. Palmer: We on this side of the House are very much in favour of tradition; there are some traditions which are in the public interest.

Mr. du Cann: I know that and I can quite understand that the Labour Party and the hon. Member feel that it is important to take this traditional power.
The argument is put forward, as it was argued when the principal Act was debated in this House and in another place, that a monopoly nationalised industry needs protection against the possibility of being held to ransom by competitive private enterprise. It seems a little odd, but that was the argument. None the less it is a serious argument and should be examined seriously. That was before the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It is, therefore, absolutely obsolete, out-of-date and irrelevant to the discussion.
I wish to quote what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said during the Committee stage proceedings on the principal Act in March, 1947. Referring to the necessity for the central Authority, in certain circumstances, to manufacture its own plant, the right hon. Gentleman said that
 it would only do so if it were essential as a safeguard against price rings and the like…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1947; c. 576.]


Lord Jowitt, then Lord Chancellor, said it in another place at greater length:
I do say quite frankly that we do not anticipate we shall have to go in for large-scale manufacturing so far as one can perceive, at any rate for the next few years,
those are important words—
except as a weapon of defence. We must have this power in case we find ourselves, as we think, hardly dealt with by rings …
Nevertheless I am enabled to give your Lordships this assurance … it is not intended that this power will be used except where danger of such practices as I have referred to arise. If there are no objectionable practices these powers will remain in abeyance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd July, 1947; c. 59.]
7.30 p.m.
If there cannot be these objectionable practices on the part of competitive private industry, why, therefore, do we need these powers? We should note, I feel, the arguments which are not used. The argument is not used that United Kingdom manufacturers cannot do the job. It is not said that United Kingdom firms do not need the work. Indeed, everyone admits that a flourishing home market is urgently needed by United Kingdom manufacturers.
It is fair comment to make, I think, that without a flourishing home market private manufacturers cannot do their jobs in export fields. It was said in Committee that the discussion was only a storm in a teacup because these powers were permissive, but they were, none the less, unrestricted and no hon. Member of the House, I believe, can swear that they would never be used, particularly when it was said in Committee—and I quote, again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington, that
We… decline to accept the proposition that it should be inhibited "—
that is, the electricity industry—
in any circumstances from manufacturing plant for internal Use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th March, 1947; c. 576.]
Our view, my view certainly, is that if this power were left in the Bill it might still be abused. I believe that the arguments for removing it are overwhelming and I therefore support the Amendment.

Mr. Holt: I should like to say that if we knew that at a later stage in the Bill the Government would support measures for making the electricity area boards go

to the market and really, in effect, enable them to work in a commercial way, we would oppose the Amendment now. If they were getting their money from the market like any other commercial organisation, there really would be no reason at all why the House should pass the Amendment.
I was not on the Committee, but I have read the speech of the Paymaster-General on 7th February—a very good speech. I have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) this afternoon, and I thought that it was a very poor one. It contained the most extraordinary argument that the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested really could be interpreted very widely and the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, "You need not worry about that because they cannot go in for any big research or big development because the electricity Generating Board or the area boards have not got the 'know-how' and have not the specialised knowledge to indulge in that kind of thing." They can do some minor research for development but they have not the ability or practical "know-how" to do the kind of things that my hon. Friend suggested were technically possible under this Amendment.
That is an argument in the case of this Amendment, but he then said, "Of course, we must not allow them to manufacture any electrical plant. I suggest that they have not got the 'know-how' for that either."

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Holt: I cannot give way and I shall detain the House for only a minute or so. The hon. Member cannot argue at one stage, as he has done, that there is no danger of this Amendment being used in a wide sense merely for minor research, and, at the same time, put forth any argument for the Amendment, because if the electricity authorities have not the "know-how" to do major research, they certainly have not the "know-how" to produce major plant and that is what they are now to be prevented from doing.
I entirely agree that the whole burden of the speech which the Minister made


in Committee was dependent on the electricity undertakings being commercial undertakings in every sense of the word. As we have no assurance as yet that he is going to accept the financial suggestions put to him, although we have some reservations about this particular Amendment, we would certainly be prepared to curtail the activities of the electricity authorities until they have been sent to the market for the whole of their finance.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I should like to say a few words very briefly in support of the Amendment and to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having moved it. I think that what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) is grossly unfair. I think that it is a courageous act to change one's mind when one has been convinced that one is wrong. That is what my right hon. Friend has done, and I am very glad that he has done so.
What I think those who disapprove of the Amendment have failed to show—and I heard all the discussions in Committee about it—is any reason for keeping it in the Bill at all. I have not heard any argument for it. There is an argument against it in the Report of the Herbert Committee, which the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) quoted. Paragraph 428 reads:
… we think it is certainly not a very practical or economical proposition at the present time for the Central Authority to undertake the manufacture of this very complicated engineering equipment, which would require investment in plant and buildings on a huge scale and the recruitment of skilled labour now fully engaged.
One of the great points is that skilled labour is fully engaged in private industry and that it can be obtained for the manufacture of this plant only by taking it away from private industry to the detriment of our export trade.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: In view of the Government's defence statement and the proposed White Paper on Defence which, I understand, is to be published tomorrow, and in view of the fact that this will affect heavy armaments, does the hon. Gentleman not think that there would be very readily available that type of labour which could well be transferred to the manufacture of electrical plant of

the type required by the British Electricity Authority for the purpose of running power stations? I should have thought that followed. Indeed, the hon. Member might care to direct his attention to that point. It might help to avoid possible unemployment in that field.

Mr. Johnson: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that defence and the manufacture of electrical plant are quite different matters. My argument was that it would be taking away from the manufacturers who are doing the job quite well already in order that the Board could set up on its own account. To take away the skilled men surely would be harmful to the export trade, in which the manufacturers are very successful.
Another matter which makes it undesirable is the suggestion that the electricity boards should go in for manufacturing this plant because they should be treated as ordinary commercial undertakings. Whatever we like to say about it, and however we like to treat it, the boards are not and cannot be normal commercial undertakings. The nationalised industries have not the safeguard which would apply to a private concern, and that safeguard is that it would probably go bankrupt if it went in for uneconomic manufacture.
I have heard no argument in favour of retaining this power. If it is suggested, as it has been suggested, that it is necessary in case the existing manufacturers could not provide the plant, that seems to me most unlikely to happen. Nor could I see how it would help, because the board could not turn round and suddenly provide the equipment. The board and private enterprise are at present working quite well in combination. The Authority, being virtually the only customer for this equipment, buys it from the existing manufacturers. This acts as a shop window in which people from abroad can see the plant working. They then return to their country and order it.
It seems to me very unwise to disturb that perfectly happy relationship. We should leave it alone. If there is any reason for the board to manufacture this plant, all I can say is that so far it has not been given. I object to this power to some extent on the ground of political theory, for when it is generally admitted


that the power will not be needed I do not see why we should put it in the Bill for the Party opposite to use if they feel inclined at some time in the future. I see no use whatever in retaining in the Bill something which is unnecessary, undesirable and unwanted, and for those reasons I strongly support what my right hon. Friend has done.

Mr. Warbey: I imagine that by now, especially after the speeches made by hon. Members on his side of the House, including his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), and after the cogent points advanced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Minister realises that appeasement does not pay. It seems probable that he has got himself saddled with an Amendment to the Bill which may in the course of time prove to be a considerable source of embarrassment to a Conservative Government. I must say that I thought the Minister gave no effective answer to the points made by his hon. and gallant Friend and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The Amendment leaves out the words "electrical plant" and substitutes the word "anything." This leaves the door very wide open. Although I agree that there are restrictive words later, before we reach them we open the door in certain circumstances to the possibility of the Board manufacturing anything whatsoever—not just electrical plant or fittings but anything. It is only later in the Amendment that we begin to get some restrictions on that word "anything," but even so they are of such a character and are so vaguely worded that it would be possible for the Generating Board with the approval of future Ministers to drive a pretty wide coach and horses through the terms of the Amendment.
Although it has not been admitted to us so far in the House, I am fairly certain that, as a result of the debate, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will have another look at the Amendment, even if it is carried today, and that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his hon. Friends will have another look at it, too. There will be another meeting of the Conservative fuel and power group upstairs and further pressure upon the Minister, which will have the

effect that, in another place, he will introduce other words in order further to tighten the restrictions he has sought to impose upon the new electricity boards.
When we were discussing this matter in Committee we were frequently told by hon. Members opposite that we were seeking to introduce further nationalisation by a back door. The Minister expressed great concern that there should not be further nationalisation through a back door. What he is doing now, however, as a result of his surrender to his hon. Friends, is to introduce denationalisation through a back door.
7.45 p.m.
The power to manufacture plant in the broader sense, which was provided in the 1947 Act, has now been withdrawn, and it has been indicated that this has been done in response to Conservative philosophy; in other words, it has been done out of a dogmatic conception of what the Conservative Party regard as policy for the country today. When I think back upon words used by the Minister in Committee, I am extremely alarmed. Speaking about a similar Amendment, he said:
Our attitude to this matter reflects our attitude to the nationalised industries generally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th February, 1957; c. 77.]
At that time he used those words to defend giving the maximum degree of commercial freedom in order that the Authority might work as efficiently as possible, but now he no longer wants to give it the maximum degree of commercial freedom so that it may work efficiently.
He has surrendered to the dogmatic philosophy of his hon. Friends, and we may therefore now expect a new attitude towards the nationalised industries generally. This surrender is far more sinister than the implications of this Clause in the Bill, because we can now expect that a similar approach will be followed in respect of other nationalised industries and that before very long we shall find, for example, that the ancillary activities of the National Coal Board will be attacked on the same ground of Conservative philosophy and the National Coal Board will no longer be allowed to make bricks because that interferes with private enterprise. It will be argued that nationalised industries should not be


allowed to do anything out of which private industry can make satisfactory profit.
That is the philosophy of hon. Members opposite. It is the philosophy which lies behind the Minister's Amendment. In our view, therefore, it is an Amendment which should be most decisively rejected by the House. I hope we shall be supported by the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] The representative of the Liberal Party has left after making a speech.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The Liberals are holding a meeting in a telephone box.

Mr. Warbey: The representatives of the Liberal Party have expressed concern about this Amendment, and I hope that they will not feel that they have any duty to go into the Division Lobby to support the Government.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: It is as well to recapitulate the rake's progress made by the Minister in putting down this Amendment. We immediately ran into difficulties in Committee because there had been a deletion from the 1947 Act of the words, "to manufacture plant and fittings". The proposal broke down as a result of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), for it was impossible to define what was plant and what were fittings. As a result of that quandary in which the Minister found himself, I think he has seen the virtue of our arguments, because in his Amendment he is allowing the manufacture of the plant required for the maintenance of electrical generating stations. But the words used are very nebulous.
What is the definition of "anything"? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in any circumstances it is to be impossible for, say, the resident engineer in a power station to give the order to make certain boiler fittings? Is that to be deemed to be impossible? It is "anything". Or is it to be argued that that is not essential for the maintenance of the plant. These fittings can be purchased from very well-known firms of boiler makers.
Let us take the coal-handling plant. There is very often a breaking of the shaft in the coal-handling plant. Is it to be said that it is wrong for the resident

engineer to give orders for a shaft to be turned up or a key way to be cut? Has that to be purchased from the makers? These are all questions that we feel compelled to ask. Reference has been made to B.E.A.M.A., and some of us know, from our experience in the industry as workers, members of local authorities and members of committees, precisely the strength of the various power groups at work within the industry. There are certain trades which, during ten years' experience as chairman of a local electricity authority, I have found very repugnant indeed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has had even greater experience when he was Chairman of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority.
The makers of turbines and boiler plants very often visit the various power stations because they want to sell their fittings, and they get the information that this sort of repair work, the making of essential parts, is taking place. Indeed, walking through the fitters' shop they may see the axle and the key-way being cut. Is the B.E.A. to be denied the right to make that? What about boiler pumps? I remember that we used to have trouble with the governors, particularly with one make which I shall not mention. It was very often my job to turn a spindle and to fit it, but this is something, again, that can be purchased from the makers. Is the Authority to be denied the right to do that work?
Why has the terminology been left so wide by the use of the word "anything"? I think that the Minister has just bent over backwards to appease these pressure groups within his own party who were so eloquent in Committee, though no case was made out by them. Rather was the reverse the case, because the right hon. Gentleman himself in Committee conceded that we had actually made out our case, and that it was impossible to define what fittings were required for maintenance. Now we have these wide, vague generalities which mean nothing. I cannot understand why the Minister has fallen for this.
Let us take things as they are. The 1947 Act empowered the British Electricity Authority to make the plant, but not the fittings. In actual fact, I can say that many fittings were made. The trouble is that I do not think there is a single hon. Gentleman opposite—now


that Sir Arnold Gridley is Lord Gridley —who has had experience of the industry. When fittings are mentioned, they think in terms of electric light fittings and not of those required for the turbines, the boilers and the various other plant in power stations. It is not those that the British Electricity Authority wanted to make, or indeed would have made.
Our concern is that certain conditions might arise when it would be necessary for the Authority to make plant. We nearly arrived at that stage in 1948 and 1949—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister of Power has had the experience.

Mr. Hobson: The Minister of Power, yes. We know him only too well and have met him across the table, with varying degrees of success.
By the 1947 Act, the B.E.A. had the power to make plant, but it did not exercise that power. It nearly had to use it in 1948 and 1949, because we were faced with the situation where turbines were in partial construction in many of the new power stations then being built by the Labour Government, but there was a shortage of the auxiliary plant. I presume that the extraction pumps and condenser pumps are now not regarded as fittings but as plant, and presumably this Amendment would make it impossible for the British Electricity Authority to manufacture the auxiliary plant.
Suppose that as a result of pressure from the various exports markets for the provision of electrical plant the manufacturers were unable to cope, and suppose there was a shortage of work in the naval dockyards. The naval dockyards are admirably suited for the manufacture of auxiliary plant—extracting pumps, circulating pumps and condensers. No patent rights are involved or, if they are, arrangements can be made to manufacture on licence. It may well be in the interests of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep full employment operating in the Admiralty dockyards. Are those yards to be denied the right to manufacture this plant? As I say, we very nearly had that situation to face in 1948 and 1949. But the British Electricity Authority never made the turbine generators or the boilers—never.
The effect of the Amendment is to take from the Authority the powers given to it by the 1947 Act and to say that in no circumstances can it manufacture plant. That means, I presume—taking the broader definition—boilers and turbine generators. Let us examine the situation. The industry itself is already working to capacity and it is very difficult to see how it can extend. I should have thought that the export of turbines and boiler plant was the type of export that the party opposite would like to see extend. I think that there we have common ground between us. One thing that the British people can do is to build and sail ships, but another thing they can do is to make turbines and boilers.
We can develop that side, and we have been very successful indeed. If the companies concerned are already working to capacity and are breaking out into certain more profitable sidelines, as some of them are—like English Electric which is branching out into guided missiles—what is wrong in the Authority itself manufacturing the plant? The only reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite are against it is because of their doctrinaire approach, their party politics. It is a question of party politics and of limiting the sphere of public enterprise. That is what is involved.
8.0 p.m.
I should have thought that, in view of the tightly-knit network which exists in the manufacture of electrical plant, it would have been in the interests of hon. Members opposite and their supporters, believing as they do in competition, to encourage competition between the private and public sectors. I should have thought they would have welcomed that.
I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to move this Amendment. He is a reasonable person. He knows the difficulties involved. Why on earth has he succumbed to the pressure from behind him, particularly from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who, I regret, is not now in his place, and who had such a lot to say in Committee and seemed to be speaking from a B.E.A.M.A. brief on this issue? The right hon. Gentleman has given way to this pressure against the public interest, and I think that, on reflection, he will feel sorry that he has done so.
There is plenty of time between now and the passage of the Bill through another place for the right hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts. Both sides accept the nationalisation of electricity. Why move what is in the last analysis a minor wrecking Amendment?

Mr. Hayman: I feel, too, that hon. Members on this side of the House have a right to express their political philosophy as much as Government speakers. It is extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should come to the House and plead for restriction in manufacture.
One of the arguments adduced here today by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), and also in Committee was that this is an industry which has full employment and that it would be

wrong for there to be any fresh manufacture because it would draw away skilled labour from existing plants. But, surely, one of the principles of Conservative philosophy is economic freedom. The Conservatives have told the country for years that they stand for economic freedom. Apparently this economic freedom does not, in their opinion, extend to the skilled worker.

There is no doubt that anybody who reads the first speech on this topic by the Paymaster-General in Committee will find that he has made a very great concession to those who then opposed and humiliated him.

Question put, That the words "electrical plant" stand part of the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 204.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
18.4 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moss, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne valley)
Moyle, A.


Balfour, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Benson, G.
Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Blackburn, F,
Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Owen, W. J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Boyd, T. C.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, N.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, H. E.


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Redhead, E. C.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hon, A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, Arthur
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Fienburgh, W.
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, T.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stones, W. (Consett)


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S. T.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.




Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Warbey, W. N.
Willey, Frederick
Woof, R. E.


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Weitzman, D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Zilliacus, K.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, R. L.


Amery, Julian (Preson, N.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfd)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Arbuthnot, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Baldwin, A. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hobson, J.G.S.(Warwick&amp;Leamington)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holt, A. F.
Partridge, E.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hornby, R. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pott, H. P.


Black, C. W.
Howard, John (Test)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Braine, B. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Redmayne, M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, D. L. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Cary, sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Russell, R. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Keegan, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, H. W.
Sharples, R. C.


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, P. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lagden, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Leburn, W. G.
Storey, S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cunningham, Knox
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Summers, Sir spencer


Dance, J. C. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Temple, John M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Thompton, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McAdden, S. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Elliott, R. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Vane, W. M. F.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McKibbin, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fell, A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wade, D. W.


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fort, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Waterhouse, Capt. R. Hon. C.


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Goodhart, P. C.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wills G. (Bridgwater)


Gower, R. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Woollam, John Victor


Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas



Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Bryan.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 5, leave out from "that" to "sell" in line 7 and insert:
nothing in paragraph (c) of this subsection, or in the principal Act, shall be construed as authorising the Generating Board to manufacture anything except as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or to "—[Mr.Maudling]

Clause 3.—(ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF ELECTRICITY COUNCIL.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end to insert:
and may (in addition to the members so appointed) appoint as members of the Council such number of other persons, not exceeding three, as he may from time to time determine".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think it would be convenient to the House to discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments, as well as the last four Government Amendments to Clause 3.

Mr. Renton: As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be convenient to discuss also the next two Amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, also to line 21, and the last four Government Amendments to the Clause. In fact, of course, all the Government Amendments go together.
The purpose of these five Government Amendments is to achieve four things. The first is to allow the Minister to appoint up to three ordinary members of the Electricity Council from persons who at the time of their appointment were not members of any electricity board. Then, secondly, the condition of not being a member of an electricity board at the time of appointment is to apply equally to the chairman and deputy chairman of the Council. Thirdly, neither they nor any of the three independent members whom we propose are to be eligible for appointment to an electricity board so long as they are members of the Council. The last point is thta the representation of the Generating Board on the Council is increased from two to three.
This meets a request put forward by the Opposition in Committee, but I should add that it does so for a slightly different reason. Our object is not to increase the weight of the Generating Board representation on the Electricity Council, as decisions will not be taken by vote there, but to make sure that the

electrical engineering and financial side of the Board's work is adequately represented in all circumstances.
With that explanation, I think that perhaps the best course may now be to hear what Members opposite wish to say about their other Amendments which are being discussed. Then it might be convenient to the House for me to reply to the points which they make, both on their own or our Amendments, and I shall be happy to do so.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: I am anxious to respond to the invitation of the hon. and learned Gentleman and to put the view of this side of the House in favour of the Amendments which we have put forward. Taking our two Amendments together, the first would have the effect of strengthening the Council by the addition of three other Ministerial nominees. We leave the choice of these extra Ministerial appointments to the Minister himself, in the sense that, though we make it an obligation on the Minister to make the appointments, we do not limit him as to the kind of appointment which should be made.

Mr. Renton: On that point, do I understand correctly that the only difference between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend on this matter is that he would make it compulsory for the Minister to appoint these three representatives, whereas the Amendments of my right hon. Friend would make it optional?

Mr. Palmer: That is precisely the point, so far as that particular group of appointments is concerned, because we think there should be a definite obligation on the Minister to strengthen the Council in this way.
Turning to our other Amendment to line 21, there we ask that the Minister should appoint another three persons
 appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the organisation of workers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and the House will note that we have said nothing there about these extra people needing to have electricity supply experience, because we feel that there will be plenty on the Council. The chairman of the area


boards—twelve of them—and the chairman and two other members of the Generating Board, will be on the Council ex officio, so that there will be plenty of people on that central supervisory body with electricity supply experience.
We have not used the words used in the principal Act, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that some of these words have obviously been taken from the principal Act. We have said nothing there to specify that there should be someone with particular scientific knowledge, because we think that is likely to be sorted out satisfactorily, as many of those on the Council, coming from the industry itself, will have scientific knowledge. We have concentrated, in advocating these extra appointments, on what we refer to as
experienced… in industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the organisation of workers.
To take the industrial, commercial or financial aspect, in view of the importance of the Council and the many duties which it will have to perform on behalf of the nationalised industry, it is important to make quite certain that there are people there with proved experience in industrial, commercial or financial affairs. That is essential, and we should not leave that necessarily just to the chance nature of those who come forward from the industry itself, with all respect to them.
The point to which we should like the Minister to pay close regard is this. We advocate also that, among the three, there should be someone preferably with experience in the organisation of workers. That is the case already in the Bill, in carrying on the provisions of the principal Act, so far as the Generating Board itself is concerned. Equally, an obligation on the area boards to have within their membership people with experience in the organisation of workers arises under the principal Act; I think that that is right.
In view of the responsibilities of the Council for making the preliminary agreement with the trade unions and for establishing machinery for settlement by negotiation of wages, salaries, and working conditions, together with what is now likely to be the additional duty of the Council, as a result of Amendments on the Notice Paper, to make an agreement with the trade unions or appropriate

organisations for the establishment of machinery for organising joint consultation, the labour relations obligations of the Council are likely to be of great importance. It is no use instancing the Gas Act as a comparison. The electricity supply industry is not the gas industry; this is a much larger and more important, expanding industry, wherein good labour relations are vital.
In the circumstance, it is, surely, a very sound argument to advance that the Government should make certain that there is someone serving on the Council who has this special kind of experience in labour relations. We would prefer that the appointment should be made from the trade unions. That has often been the case in the past. However, we have used the words
having had experience of … the organisation of workers.
Many arguments were used in Committee in favour of strengthening the Council and making it more independent, enabling it to take a more genuinely detached and supervisory view over the operations of the industry as a whole. My hon. and right hon. Friends, together with several hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on the Standing Committee, put forward arguments in favour of the Council being strengthened by the appointment of more independently-minded people, that is to say, those who are not too inhibited by or bound up with their own everyday tasks in the industry.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are very familiar with the arguments advanced upstairs and, for that matter, in the House itself on Second Reading, in favour of strengthening the more independent outlook of the Electricity Council. That is the main purpose of the Amendments that we have put down. It so happens that one of our Amendments, by chance, coincides in its terms with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but with the difference, of course, that we want the obligation to make the first three appointments a definite obligation upon the Minister, not for them to be left permissive.
I have referred to the arguments used in the House and in Committee in favour of strengthening the Council. We freely concede that the Minister has gone quite


a way towards meeting those arguments, but we feel that he could further improve the Bill by accepting our Amendments in the spirit in which we have put them down. They represent a genuine attempt to be constructive and improve the future working of the industry.
I am sure that the Minister will not overlook what the Herbert Committee had to say. I know that the Bill does not accept the Herbert solution providing for a new, really detached central authority; but nevertheless the Herbert Committee did bring forward powerful arguments in favour of the Electricity Council being able to sit back and look at these broad problems which must be solved in the industry, problems which those who are engaged every day in the work of the industry do not find easy to solve for themselves. The Herbert Report can, I think, in broad principle be called in aid of our argument here.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has gone out, obviously for some deserved, or rather undeserved, nourishment. Speaking from memory. I think it was he who quoted in aid—he is very good at quoting what manufacturers say, since he obviously knows them very well—something said by the Federation of British Industries. Apparently, the Federation of British Industries has gone on record in some place or other—one is glad to hear it. for it shows how sensible it was, at least in this matter—in favour of what I have described as a more detached kind of Electricity Council. That object would be achieved by making these extra appointments. The Trades Union Congress also, together with a number of other genuinely independent, expert authorities and theoretical people who write about the affairs of the electricity industry, have gone on record in much the same sense.
May I now try to deal in advance with an argument which may be advanced in objection to our Amendments? After all, we are now at this stage proposing to add altogether six extra members to the Council. It may be said that that would make the Council unreasonably large. In Committee, the effect of our Amendments was to give the Council a membership totalling 24. At our seventh Sitting, when asked whether he considered that a Council of 24 members

would be unreasonably large, the Paymaster-General said that he did not think so. Therefore, since the Paymaster-General in Committee accepted our view that a membership of 24 would not make the Electricity Council too large, hon. and right hon. Members opposite cannot convincingly argue that our Amendments would change the Council, which is not to be an executive body in the ordinary sense, from a compact, useful body into one that was unnecessarily wide.
8.30 p.m.
We on this side of the House should be glad to hear that the Government have given this matter still further thought. They promised to do so when we discussed the whole issue at some length in the Committee upstairs, as we discussed many other things. We should like to hear that the Government have given the matter further thought, that they acknowledge the good sense of bending further to our point of view, and that they will, in those circumstances, accept our sensible Amendments.

Mr. Hayman: I should like to quote from the remarks of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) during the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee. He said:
Has my right hon. Friend any predilections affecting the maximum size of the Council, because I would unreservedly withdraw my objections to all the area board chairmen being on the Council provided that my right hon. Friend did not consider that the Council would be too big if, say, 24 people were on it?
The Paymaster-General, immediately following the hon. Member for Kidderminster, replied:
 No, I do not think that that would be too many. I think that there are boards of companies numbering above twenty. I do not think that there should be an absolute limit." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th February 1957; c. 308.]
When we consider the present Amendments, we find that if they were all accepted, subsection (2, a) would provide for a chairman and two deputy-chairmen of the Electricity Council, making a total of three; subsection (2, b) would provide for three members of the Generating Board, including the chairman; and subsection (2, c) would include the twelve chairmen of the area boards, thus making a total of eighteen. I think I am right in saying that, as the Bill was presented to


the Standing Committee, the total would have been sixteen or seventeen.
The Amendment proposes that the Minister
 … may (in addition to the members so appointed) appoint as members of the Council such number of other persons, not exceeding three, as he may from time to time determine.
That is to say, he may appoint them or he may not. If he did not appoint them, the membership of the Council would remain at eighteen. Our first Amendment would substitute "shall" for "may" and would make it obligatory on the Minister to appoint three additional persons, making a membership of twenty-one. I suggest that in making those three appointments, the Minister might well consider appointing one of the chairmen of the consultative councils.
During our proceedings in Committee, there was an Amendment, which we withdrew—

Mr. Renton: On a point of order. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which deals separately with that point, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(b) the Minister shall also appoint one of the Chairmen of the Consultative Councils of the area boards to serve on the Electricity Council.
I should have thought that it was best to deal with it separately.

Mr. Hobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the relevance of the four Amendments, and particularly the last one concerning representation from the consultative councils, may we have an explanation why that Amendment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) was referring and which is germane to the constitution of the Electricity Council, is not being discussed at the same time as the other Amendments? I do not know what the procedure is, although I have been a Member for twelve years. I do not know why the Amendment is to be called separately. Judging from the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is to be called, but we are not in a position to discuss that. This is a rather interesting point upon which we would like some explanation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House agreed that a number of Amendments should he taken together, but the other

Amendment seems to raise rather a different point.

Mr. Hobson: My hon. Friend referred to the consultative council chairmen, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a further Amendment about that. There is generally an agreement between the Chair and the Government about which Amendments are to be called. That is done to facilitate matters. I do not know whether the Amendment to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred is to be called or not, but I gather from his intervention that it is to be called separately and I cannot understand why.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought it raised a rather different point.

Mr. Hobson: It is precisely the same point, because it deals with who should be on the Electricity Council. That was a point my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) was making. If the Parliamentary Secretary had not intervened, I should have put the same query. I refrained from doing so, because I thought that a Ruling was involved and I should on no account challenge a Ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House, it can be taken with the other Amendments now being discussed. I thought it was a special point. Will that be convenient to the House?

Mr. Renton: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and you, in turn, are in the hands of the House. I should have thought that there was a limit to the number of Amendments which could be conveniently discussed together. We are at the moment discussing no fewer than seven Amendments on five of which—the five Government Amendments—no fewer than four points are already taken. Two further points are taken in the two Opposition Amendments.
It seemed to me, and no doubt to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this separate point—of one of the consultative council chairmen being added to the Electricity Council—a point which had never been raised in Committee, was quite different from all the other points. I have no wish to do other than be as co-operative as


possible and if it is your opinion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendments should be taken together, then, of course, I accept your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is for the House, but if objection is taken to them being taken together—and I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that it would be more convenient not to take them together—let us take this Amendment separately.

Mr. Hobson: I have no objection at all. I am merely trying to facilitate our work and am not trying to be obstructive. I think that it is just as well that further consideration should be given to these points by the Treasury Bench when they occur. I leave it at that.

Mr. Hayman: On a point of order. May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendment in page 3, line 22, to subsection (2, b) relates to the number on the Electricity Council. It is true that there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) about the number of chairmen of the consultative councils serving on the Electricity Council. In Committee we had an Amendment covering seven other named organisations, including those represented on the consultative councils. I should have thought that it would have been relevant to take together all the Amendments dealing with the total constitution of the council.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am merely suggesting that the normal course is to take Amendments together only by agreement, and there does not seem to be complete agreement about the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard). Therefore, I suggest that we should discuss that separately later.

Mr. Hayman: I will not continue any further now, but I hope that at some stage it will be possible for me to debate the question of the number of appointees to the Council. It is very important. In Committee, the Minister himself admitted that twenty-four was a number which would be quite acceptable to him and that it was acceptable to boards of directors in industry. We did not ask him to make that concession; he offered it himself.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept out Amendment to alter the word "may" to "shall" in connection with the three members named in the Government's Amendment, and also the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I share the view that the Parliamentary Secretary should he able to change the word "may" to "shall". I believe it was the late Georges Clemenceau who said that the experts were usually right about small things and wrong about big ones. My experience in life has convinced me of the truth of that statement, and I believe that, as now constituted, the Council is one of experts.
I know from my experience within the supply industry that, prior to nationalisation, some of the most successful undertakings were controlled not by engineers —and if I have any bias it is as an engineer—but by financial experts. I do not think that there is any harm in mentioning one example, because not many people will be able to trace the individual concerned, although he is still active. I refer to the case of Hull, which was a very successful undertaking, controlled by an accountant. His appointment took place in a blaze of publicity because it was the first undertaking to be controlled by an accountant and not by an engineer. Under the Nationalisation Act of 1947 the private and public spheres have now been co-ordinated.
Having seen the Bill all through Committee, having dealt with it continually and slept with it, so that I know it almost by heart, I would point out that the Council has a congenital weakness in that it is a little too overloaded with engineers. The chairmen of the area boards, with possibly one exception, are engineers. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it was highly desirable to have these other three men, with a knowledge of finance, commerce, administration and labour relations, appointed to the Council.
It is even more important now, because the Council is, as it were, the Cabinet of the industry. It will be deciding policy, and it is just as well to have this leavening of people other than engineers taking part in its deliberations. The addition of the three will not make it too unwieldy. I think that is a point well worth


serious consideration by the Government. The Electricity Council would be a better body were they included upon it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope that the Paymaster-General will accept the two Opposition Amendments. I wish to submit one or two reasons why they should be accepted. The two Amendments may seem simple, but they are of tremendous importance because here, in a limited way, we are discussing the whole question of the democratic structure covering great public investments. This structure will prove of immeasureable importance in the future. Nations today are being increasingly compelled to engage in industrial activities and take over services the administration of which was previously the prerogative of the businessman. As these activities of the State in the field of industry and public services are developed, so we increase the power of the expert, the manager, and the administrator.
We are not developing our democratic structure in a manner commensurate with the advance of the State into activities in industry and the control of public services, arid that is why these two simple Amendments are so important. They do not deal with the whole problem, but they represent the start of an attempt to deal with the vital matter of bringing in more people representing other interests than those of the industry and the actual producer; more public-minded people with experience, who will help to control these vast and expanding public investments.
The structure suggested in the provisions of the Bill is a highly centralised one. There is not a lot of internal democracy within it, nor can we change it, because that is how it has developed. It may be that we shall change it in the future when we are able to take a more realistic and positive view of the way in which our institutions are developing.
What is proposed by these Amendments? It is that the Minister shall have the power to appoint three people who are not necessarily actively associated with the industry. They might include a most efficient voluntary worker in a county council or local authority who would be capable of representing, in a vigorous and national way, the interests of the consumer as distinct from those of the experts who are working in the industry.
Alternatively, they might include an outstanding trade union leader, who, through years of experience, understands the interests of the trade unionists and that they also have consumer interests as well as trade union interests. It could be a person with vast public experience who could give a wider aspect to the whole problem of producing power than could possibly be given by somebody whose day-to-day work is associated too closely with the industry. Because they are so close, they are not able to look at the problem in a majestic way.
For these reasons, the two Opposition Amendments should be accepted. They extend an important principle of democracy. They take us a little away from the managerial revolution which is creating a lot of frustration today, and towards a more democratic control of vast public investments. They may offer a way of experimenting with democratic structure in a nationalised industry of importance for the future. For these fundamental reasons the two Amendments, if accepted, would strengthen the Bill and would further the democratic principles which are important in nationalised industries.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meeting the wishes expressed by this side of the House during the Committee stage. It is worth while recalling a little of the history of this matter to appreciate why we feel that the Minister has not yet gone far enough.
As the Bill was drafted, the composition of the Electricity Council might have consisted of only 15 persons. It could have been limited to the 12 area board chairmen plus two representatives of the Generating Board and an independent chairman. It would have been a board representative of the executive organisations within the industry, plus an independent chairman over them all.
That would have corresponded to a view which was expressed at one time by the Parliamentary Secretary. The conception was of the area boards and the Generating Board acting as largely autonomous units but coming together in a kind of federal deliberative assembly to sort out problems in which they had a common interest. It would have been an assembly like the Council of Europe, which has deliberative functions but no


real powers. That conception, which is understandable, undoubtedly led to the original idea that the composition of the Board should be governed in that way.
However, in the course of the Committee stage, and of further thought given by the Government—under pressure from our side—to the Bill and to the structure of the industry, we succeeded in making the Minister think about these matters. As a result of the pressure, the Government came to accept a rather different conception of the powers and functions of the Electricity Council and of the composition which it ought to have.
They came to recognise, and in the course of Amendments and new Clauses which they added to the Bill themselves approved of, the principle that the Electricity Council must have certain quite important executive functions. There was added to it, for example, the comparatively minor—but nevertheless important—function of adjudicating on disputes between the electricity boards. Once we give to the Electricity Council the power to adjudicate between its constituent parts, immediately we have to accept the principle that it should have the kind of composition to enable it to exercise such a judicial function without being too heavily weighted on the side of one particular interest in the industry.
Then it was made clear to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of a speech on, I think, Clauses 14 and 15 concerned with the raising of loan capital and the allocation of that capital to electricity boards, that the Electricity Council would have an exceedingly important function—" powers" I think would be the right word to use in this case—in the allocation of the capital raised. Although the capital to be raised must correspond in the long term with the programmes drawn up by the boards with the approval of the Minister, nevertheless it does appear from what the Parliamentary Secretary told us that it will be the Electricity Council which will decide at any given moment which electricity boards, the Generating Board or area boards, and which area boards, are to receive priority in relation to the actual expenditure of capital.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Electricity Council would have to take into account the general national policy regarding the

expansion or restriction of investment at any given moment. If we were in a period when the general policy was to restrict or limit capital investment then the Electricity Council would have to withhold the allocation of capital, that is to say, of the proceeds of loans, to the boards. The hon. and learned Gentleman also gave the example of an area board which might have some reason to proceed with a very urgent piece of capital development, say for the expansion of rural electrification, and said that such an area board should be given priority in respect of the receipt of capital.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the Electricity Council is to have exceedingly important powers in the industry. That corresponds with the view put forward at all times in Committee by hon. Members on this side of the House. We have always taken the view that we must have a body which has the power to exercise general co-ordination in the interest of general public policy. If it is to do that it must be suitably composed in order to be able to exercise those powers.
We raised two objections to the composition of the Council as originally proposed. First, it was overweighted by one section of the industry, the area boards. Secondly, there were not enough people on it who could take an independent view of the industry and could think of the development of the industry as a coordinated whole, both internally and in a proper relation to the general policy for capital investment and the expansion of energy and industrial programmes.
9.0 p.m.
We therefore said that we must first bring in more independent people; we must increase the numbers of the Council. As we cannot, without introducing individous distinctions, reduce the number of the area board chairmen who are members of the Council and we accordingly have to retain 12 representatives of the area boards, we must therefore increase the total number sufficiently to balance the representation of the area boards.
If we are to do this job at all we should do it properly. There is not much point in saying that we will add one, two, three or four more and stop there. If we recognise the principle as being sound we should go the whole way, and


see that in total there are at least 12 other people to balance the 12 representatives of the area boards. That is the first thing that we are seeking to do by our Amendments—to see that there is a proper balance in the composition of the Council.
The second thing that we are trying to do is to ensure that there are sufficient persons on the Council who are representative of the general national interests that ought to be concerned in the direction of this very vital industry. They should he persons capable of independent judgment, not affected by sectional interests within the industry, but coming from outside it. Secondly, they should be persons experienced in particular types of work and in particular fields, whose experience will be available in the general directing body of this industry.
I thought that the Minister had recognised that both these principles were sound ones. If the Minister recognises the soundness of the two principles which we advocate—an increase in the number of members and a change in character of the Council—I can see no reason why the Government should not go the whole way and accept our proposals in full.

Mr. Renton: We have had an interesting and useful discussion on these Amendments and the Opposition have made their point of view perfectly plain. Since the Committee stage, with my noble Friend, we have gone very carefully into all these points about the precise composition of the Electricity Council. As has been acknowledged, we have already gone some way towards meeting hon. Members opposite in their point of view, and indeed our hon. Friends as well, because it was on both sides of the Committee that somewhat similar suggestions were made about slightly expanding the Electricity Council.
We do not consider that there is any magic in the total numbers of the Council. What is important to consider is what each member of the Council is to do. What we are proposing is a council which shall consist of a chairman and two deputy-chairmen, both of whom are independent, plus three independent or up to three independent members. Normally there will be three.

Mr. Warbey: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that normally there will be three, is he saying that it is the Government's policy that they will, in fact, normally appoint three?

Mr. Renton: We shall normally appoint three, but we would rather not be compelled always to have three members there, because a technical difficulty arises when there is a vacancy. If we are obliged to have three members there all the time, we have to fill every vacancy as quickly as possible with almost anyone we can get, instead of waiting for the right man, who may very well be known to be available in, shall we say, six months' time. It may be very well worth while waiting for him. We are out to get extremely eminent people from all walks of life to fill these important independent posts on the Electricity Council and we feel that it would be wrong to have placed upon the Minister an obligation to keep the posts continuously filled, which would be the technical effect of the Opposition Amendment in so far as it requires the Minister to have those three members always there.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "man", but I take it that he would not exclude women in certain circumstances.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood that under the Interpretation Act "man" includes "woman."

Sir F. Soskice: Embraces woman.

Mr. Renton: I am obliged. It used to be the law of this country that husband and wife were one in law and that that one was the husband, but when we say that the expression "man" embraces "woman," I think we mean that a woman is equally eligible with a man when Parliament says that a man must be appointed.
I do not think we should quarrel on mere total numbers. We have acknowledged that if it were right to fill the Electricity Council up to any particular number because there was a specific purpose in having such a number, we should not object to the number. But let us look at the numbers here. As the Bill was originally drafted, the Council could


have consisted of fifteen or sixteen members. It is now proposed by the Government that it will consist of twenty-one members, except during a brief—we hope not too long—interregnum while waiting to fill appointments. There is therefore not very much between us.
What is the purpose of these independent members? We acknowledge that they have a most valuable task to perform. As has been said, the board chairmen will normally be experts, and we want men of independent minds to help them, to guide them and to help the industry. The question is whether we shall have enough if we have six altogether, including the chairman and two deputy-chairmen. We say that six is enough and that nine is going a little too far. That is all that is dividing us.
There is, however, one further point which I should honestly face. The difference between six and nine is accounted for to a great extent by the Opposition's suggestion that three out of the nine should be drawn from persons
 having shown capacity in industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the organisation of workers.
It is interesting to note that lawyers are not among these people.

Sir F. Soskice: Shame.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. and learned Member says "Shame", and he would not expect me to dissent from his comment. Indeed, it would be a very great pity.
It is always best to illustrate these arguments bluntly by mentioning individuals, and that is what I propose to do. For example, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) is now at the disposal of private enterprise, and private enterprise is very lucky to have him, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been available, under the Amendment we should not have been allowed to appoint him, and I think that would have been a pity. I do not think that, so far, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can be said to have acquired experience in
industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the organisation of workers.
It may be that after some months he will have acquired such experience, but

because the right hon. and learned Member for Newport and his right hon. and learned Friend have sometimes got business men out of difficulties, that does not mean that they are persons of industrial, commercial or financial experience.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to mention my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). I quite appreciate that under the second of our Amendments the appointment could not be made, but surely it could be made under either the first of our Amendments or the Minister's Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend could be one of the three independent people without definite qualifications.

Mr. Renton: That is splendid. There is even less argument between us. It just shows the virtue of the Government's Amendment, which gives the widest possible choice, which is what we have always been aiming at. Also, it is what the Herbert Committee recommended for its council, which was to have very much broader and stronger functions in terms of executive powers. And although we have not accepted the Herbert solution for the structure of the Electricity Council in terms of powers, and therefore have not accepted the solution as to its constitution, we feel that we are entitled to "borrow" the Herbert advice as to the qualifications of independent members and to leave the door completely open.
Let me point out that we have no prejudice whatever against any of these estimable people having capacity in any of these things. The fact that the present Government have appointed as chairman of the National Coal Board a very eminent trade unionist, that they have re-appointed to various boards of nationalised industries various members of the trade union movement, and, indeed, have made many fresh appointments, especially among part-time members of the boards, reveals that we are just as keen about this matter as are hon. Gentlemen opposite.
To summarise the position, I would simply say that we reckon we shall have sufficiently strong, independent advice at the head of this industry if we have six independent people in addition to the 15 chairmen and other members of boards who will be on the Council. We feel


that it really would be overloading it and perhaps even make it difficult for the independent members to find enough to do, if we were to appoint yet three more of them. I am sorry that there is this difference between us, but, as I say, my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend have given close consideration to the matter and regret that they cannot meet the points of view put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end to insert:
(b) the Minister shall also appoint one of the Chairmen of the Consultative Councils of the area boards to serve on the Electricity Council.
I move this Amendment with a certain amount of trepidation as I was not on the Standing Committee, but I am doing so because it has been represented to me that, leaving out the points which we have just been discussing, there is no consumer representative on the Electricity Council. I think all those hon. Members who served so long on the Committee will agree upon the great use that these consultative councils have been. In the South-West we can certainly say that they have given service toconsumers as good as that given by any other area—perhaps better.
As was written to me by a member some time ago:
As you know, one of the main reasons for the progress in our wok on behalf of the consumers in the South-West has been because the South-Western Electricity Board and the Council have built up a spirit of confidence and trust with the closest working co-operation, resulting in no decisions being made by the Board without the Council's knowledge and support; and on many occasions Board papers, with facts and figures have been discussed by the Chairman with our Tariff Committee, and subsequently with the whole Council, before any final decision has been reached.
This seems to show that this body is most useful.
9.15 p.m.
For two reasons it would be excellent if we could have just one of the chair-men to the consultative councils in rotation to represent the consumers' interests. The independent members of the Council may represent all kinds of other interests, but it is the consumer who pays, and it seams to me that the type of consumer who otherwise would not be represented

could be represented if such an appointment were made.
There are two reasons why such an appointment should be made. First, the consumers would know, so far as the representative was able to tell them, what was going on in what otherwise might be a rather remote body in which they would not have much say and of which they would not have much knowledge. Secondly, people like the chairmen of these consultative councils who are responsible and capable people would be able, in some cases, to put forcibly the views of the consumers to the Electricity Council.

Mr. Mawby: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Herbert Report has quite a lot to say on the subject of consultative councils. One matter with which that Committee was concerned was the fact that so few people were aware of the existence of consultative councils and of the work that they were doing. Paragraph 447 states:
The effectiveness of consultative councils should not be measured merely by reference to the number of grievances which consumers have felt concerned enough to bring to the attention of the councils. In our view the very existence of the councils has served as a constant check on the area boards …
It goes on:
 For the councils to concentrate on consumers' complaints alone would not in the long run be to the general benefit of consumers.
It would be useful if a representative of the consumers' councils could be a member of the Electricity Council, for more publicity would be given to the existence of the consultative councils and to the work that they do.
There then arises the problem of the selection of a representative from the consultative councils. It would be rather difficult to hold an election among the 12 areas to decide which representative should go on to the Electricity Council. Therefore, it would probably be better if the appointment were made by the Minister from those whom he considered, upon proper advice, to be the best persons to carry out this duty; or perhaps it would be more fair if the arrangement were carried out over the whole of the country on a rota basis.
I do not know whether the acceptance of this Amendment would be contrary to the Amendment in page 3, line 47, to insert a new subsection (3). I understand that the chairman of a consultative council is also, in an ex officio capacity, a member of the area board with which he is connected. If that is so, I would rather hope that, even if this Amendment cannot be accepted, at least the Minister, in selecting the number which he is allowed to select, will certainly not neglect the fact that there are, as members of consultative councils throughout the country, able people who can not only show great experience of the industry but also great experience of consumers' problems as they have arisen over the years in the particular areas which they represent.
I hope that this matter will be looked at very closely, and that, if this Amendment would not tie up with the others, the Minister will bear in mind the services which could be performed by one of these people, from whichever area he decides to choose one.

Mr. Hayman: I desire to support the Amendment, because I believe that the consultative councils have made a very great contribution to this smooth working and development of this great nationalised industry. From the beginning, when nationalisation took place, the chairmen of the consultative councils were co-opted members of the Electricity Board, and I think that the tribute that has been paid, both by the Minister himself and by the Herbert Committee, to the work of the area boards is to some extent attributable to the smooth working between the consultative councils and the area boards.
As the Parliamentary Secretary himself pointed out in Committee, these bodies are not merely consumers' councils. They are consultative councils and statutory bodies. It seems to me, therefore, that when we are now considering this fresh legislative development in the history of this industry, it might be quite a good experiment to see that the chairman of one of these consultative councils is a member of the Electricity Council, and would then be able to bring to the work of that important body the experience which he or she may have gained in the work of the consultative council and area board.
As the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, this might require other Amendments to the Bill, but, at least, if the Minister accepted this Amendment, he could arrange for suitable further Amendments to be made in another place.

Mr. Palmer: We see no particular objection to this proposal, if it is possible to work it from the administrative point of view. In fact, I think that as a matter of general principle it adds strength to what we have argued from this side of the House and in Committee that—the council needs to be more than just made up of those who are doing the everyday work in the industry.
There is a danger—and this has been argued before—that if we are not careful the council might develop slightly too much of a syndicalist outlook, that it is running the industry for its own purposes, and, therefore, might have a tendency to think that it really knows what is best for the consumer, instead of the consumer being able to voice his own point of view. In so far as the chairman of a consultative council serving on the Electricity Council is a symbol of the consumer, it seems to me that, subject to getting over the administrative difficulty, there is a great deal to be said for it.
I note with interest that the hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment both represent constituencies in the South-West, which is a very fine part of the country, where I myself was born. I cannot help feeling that they are trying to retrieve a little of the honour which was lost in our deliberations upstairs by Conservative Members for the South-West when they did not give the support we thought it merited to our new Clause in favour of assisting rural electrification in a positive fashion. That was very close to the hearts of electricity enthusiasts in the South-West, and the banner had to be carried by my right hon. and hon. Friends alone. It is quite evident that hon. Gentlemen still feel a little conscience-stricken, and it may be that they are, on that account, giving support to this Amendment, which makes what is, in itself, a generally acceptable proposal.

Mr. Renton: First, I should like to join with hon. Gentlemen who have paid tribute to the work of the consultative


councils. It is voluntary work, except for the work of the chairmen, who are paid as part-time members of the area boards in each case. Their work has been very faithfully done.
Unfortunately, we are not able to accept the Amendment, for reasons which I hope the House will agree are sound. First, under the 1947 Act the consultative councils were given an area basis for their work. No national consultative council was set up and of course neither that not anything like it is proposed by those who are moving the Amendment.
The consultative councils have a duty to consider matters affecting consumers in each area. We must recognise the fact that circumstances vary considerably between different areas. The local character of consumer representation is brought to bear on the work of the industry through the fact that the chairman of the consultative council is a part-time member of the board. It would be quite wrong, therefore, for members of consultative councils or consumers in the country as a whole to feel that they are remote from the working of the industry.
What does the Bill do in respect of area organisation and central organisation? It certainly does not centralise. It moves towards decentralisation and regional autonomy. If we were now to aim at something like central organisation of consultative council work, we should be running contrary to the main tenor and purpose of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) hit the nail on the head when he referred to the difficulty of deciding which of the various consultative council chairmen would have to be chosen. We feel that one's choice, although it might be acceptable to some of the colleagues of the person chosen, might not be acceptable to others. The one chosen would, after all, be experienced only in the work of his own area. We have there a quite formidable difficulty presented to the Minister in deciding which of the 12 consultative council chairmen ought to be chosen.
I hope, however, that it may be some consolation to my hon. Friends who have moved the Amendment and to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) to be reminded of the fact that, in the First Schedule to the Bill, in

page 29, we have put forward a procedure whereby consultative councils may make representations to the Electricity Council. It would be out of order for me to go into that in detail, and it has been fully discussed in Committee. There, at any rate, is an opportunity for consultative councils to let their views be known, by a quite direct process, to the members of the Electricity Council. Therefore, there need be no feeling of remoteness.
9.30 p.m.
One further point which I should like to add is that as each consultative council chairman is on his or her area board and as the area board chairmen are on the Electricity Council, there is a further contact between the consultative councils and the Electricity Council. For those reasons, I am afraid that we are unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 22, leave out "two" and insert "three".

In line 24, leave out "member" and insert "members".

In line 40, leave out "either" and insert "any".

In line 47, at end insert:
(3) A person who is for the time being a member of an Electricity Board shall not be eligible to be appointed by the Minister by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection to be a member of the Electricity Council, whether as chairman, deputy chairman or otherwise; and, notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section or in any other enactment, a person who is for the time being a member of the Electricity Council so appointed shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of an Electricity Board.—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 7.—(POWERS OF MINISTER IN RELATION TO ELECTRICITY COUNCIL AND ELECTRICITY BOARDS.)

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
(4) The Minister shall formulate from time to time as may be necessary a general programme for the purpose of carrying out such measures of re-oganisation or such works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account after consultation with the Electricity Council and the Electricity Boards in England and Wales.
This proposal is in keeping with proposals which we have earlier made and which are in general designed to secure more uniformity in the development on


a national basis of the electricity industry. We seek to substitute our proposed subsection (4) for subsection (4) of Clause 7.
As we understand Clause 7, what is to be done under the provisions of subsection (4) is that a general programme is to be settled by each of the boards. That is to say, when there arises the question of reorganisation on a capital basis, involving substantial outlay of money, each board is individually to draw up a general programme covering such reorganisation on a large-scale basis. That general plan, drawn up by each individual board, is to be approved by the Minister, the Electricity Council being taken into consultation.
Our anxiety is that subsection (4) as it stands will make for a piecemeal development of the industry. We seek to substitute a proposal which would draw the industry more into one coherent, single cohesive whole. We propose that it shall be the Minister who is to initiate and carry through the formulation of a general plan for substantial capital reorganisation.
The initiative has to come from the Minister and he has to take into consultation the Electricity Council and the electricity boards. We seek in that way to introduce the overall supervisory guidance of the Minister himself and we seek by so doing to ensure that there will not be the piecemeal and individual unrelated development pursuant to the judgments and decisions of individual boards which the Bill at the moment gives reason to believe there will be.
As we have raised this issue on a number of previous occasions, and did so over and over again in Committee, without meeting with any favourable response from the Government, I move the Amendment with some despondency and without any very great optimism that the proposal will be accepted. Nevertheless, in this proposal we touch on a very important fundamental principle and we in the Opposition think that even if the Minister is likely to vote us down again, we are none the less in duty bound, as and when occasion arises, to call attention to what we think is a fundamental defect in the Bill.
The Minister still has an opportunity between this stage of the Bill and when

it reaches another place to repent and to see the light. I greatly hope that he will be illuminated by the argument I have addressed to him and to the House in general and will, even at this eleventh hour, accept our proposal in the spirit in which we make it, perhaps using other language, but incorporating the purpose and design of the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has moved the Amendment in a very smooth and simple way and without very great enthusiasm. I suppose that it is so comparatively late in the evening that he wants to draw the proceedings to an early close and not give too much trouble at this stage of the Bill. There is a more sinister motive behind the Amendment which should be exposed.
Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being entirely consistent with Socialist philosophy. Socialists like everything planned by the State from start to finish. They do not agree with competition within the United Kingdom. They have this glorified conception that the Minister is all-powerful, omniscient and capable of developing a complete plan for the reorganisation of the industry as a whole. The Labour Party has never accepted that there should be any kind of yardstick of efficiency within the United Kingdom.
In matters like civil aviation, where B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. is in competition with world airlines overseas, there is competition and efficiency, but in matters like those affecting the Bill, the railways, the Coal Board and other totally internal industries which are nationalised, there is no possible yardstick of efficiency or enterprise, unless one decentralises and allows competition.
In their wisdom, the Government have recognised that fact and in subsection (4), which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to exclude, they say in measured terms in six lines that it is only by allowing the area boards to develop their own programmes in the light of their own opinions that we will get an advancement in science and technology in the electricity industry within the United Kingdom.
What other yardstick have we? Are the officials of the Ministry of Power to go to Germany, France and the United


States to see what they are doing, in comparison with what we are doing? How can we possibly have a proper development of the technology of electricity supply, production and dissemination unless we allow the officials of the area boards to watch each other with lynx eyes to see how efficient each of them is, and what enterprises are being produced?
It cannot be done. The great fallacy of the Socialist Party is that it lives in a kind of dream world in the application and advancement of science and technology. Its whole purpose is directed to a centralised structure, which cannot be pitted against competition in the world outside because the means of communication are too few and the opportunities for scientists and technologists in the electricity industry to go overseas to see what the rest of the world is doing are too meagre and unsatisfactory.
The Government have rightly recognised this. We should allow each area board to develop an ethos and purpose of its own. The Southern Railway, before the war, was a very good example of what can be done with regionalised industries and services.

Mr. David Jones: No competition.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Yes, competition of prestige and opportunity. Before the war, the Southern Railway, by its electrification processes and its enterprise, produced a standard which, but for the war and subsequent nationalisation, would have inspired the other large main line railways. I glory in the fact that it is now possible to look forward to the occasion when the Eastern Electricity Board, the Southern Electricity Board, the North Western Electricity Board, or whichever one it may be, with an inspired chairman, board and administrators, will develop a system of service and a cheapness of price which will set the yardstick for the advance of the electricity supply industry in the United Kingdom for ten or twenty years.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite, by the fundamental stupidity of their ideological thinking in these matters, might be capable of setting back the enterprise in electricity, vis-àvis what happens in the rest of the world, by ten or twenty years. They might stultify all our process of advance. I am delighted

with the provision already in the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will stick to it.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member has put up an interesting argument in relation to the distribution side of the industry, but I hope that he has not overlooked the fact that the generating side was decentralised and remains decentralised under the Bill.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) has made an amazing speech. Judging from his speeches in the House and during the Committee stage of the Bill, I should have thought that he would have preferred the Minister to have the power rather than a coterie of experts upon the Generating Board or the area boards. It is revealing to hear him speaking in defence of the experts rather than those forms of organisation which have a lay predominance.
At present, the subsection provides that there shall be consultation with the Minister. In my opinion, the Minister's decision should be overriding. In this period of post-war economy, where there is strong competition for the amount of capital available for the electricity supply or any other industry, the Treasury, more often than not, has the overriding influence.
9.45 p.m.
I suggest that the Amendment meets the position as it is today. What is that position? The Minister of Power made a speech yesterday in another place in which he stated categorically what the programme will be. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the 19 nuclear power stations have been decided on solely by the British Electricity Authority? Of course not. That was decided in consultation with the Minister, and, therefore, our Amendment meets that point. I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. There is to be an overall programme and consideration of it in relation to the amount of capital available for this purpose.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why the Amendment cannot be accepted, particularly in view of the statement made by the Minister of Power in another place yesterday. The Minister went into great detail about the programme. It was not the experts on


the Generating Board or the atomic energy experts who said that; it was the Minister. It seems to me logical, therefore, that the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was right in saying that this Amendment reflects again the basic difference of opinion between the two sides of the House—which also existed between the two sides of the Standing Committee—on the organisation of the industry. The difference arises from the relative importance which we attribute to the boards and the Electricity Council. I think I am right in saying that we believe in the maximum devolution of responsibility to the individual boards, with the Electricity Council acting as a sort of co-ordinating body. Hon. Members opposite—I admit in line with the Herbert Committee recommendations—would give more central executive responsibility in a number of matters to the Electricity Council.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this has been debated on many occasions and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments again now. But, looking at the matter from his own point of view, I should like to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his Amendment is not a good way in which to put forward the view that he has in mind. It seeks to cut out the existing arrangement for supervising and approving capital programmes of boards and to substitute a new one. Subsection (4) as at present drafted states that the various boards
 shall act in accordance with a general programme settled by the Board from time to time after consultation with the Electricity Council and approved by the Minister.
I understand the concern of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this should not mean the fragmentation of the industry, and that the various area boards and Generating Board should go off on their own and put forward their own capital programmes without relation one to the other and without there being a catholic view taken of the whole of the activities of the industry. We consider that the apprehensions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may properly have entertained are met by our own provision that these programmes

should be settled after consultation with the Council and approval by the Minister.
Our subsection has the same purpose as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind; that these various boards should together come to the Electricity Council and put their various programmes on the table, as it were, at the Council; that all the programmes should be discussed and then, obviously, amendments and changes might be made in the light of the discussion. It is after that discussion that the Council will have to consider the various programmes put forward.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman says that all the area boards will put forward their programmes together and that they will be considered together. Where is there any provision that the programmes shall be put forward together and considered together?

Mr. Maudling: That arises from the fact that the Minister has the power of approval. No Minister would be prepared to approve one programme in isolation. He would want to look at the industry as a whole in the light of his responsibilities under the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945. We believe that the subsection will provide adequate cohesion.
The Amendment changes the whole picture completely and places the initiative with the Minister. That is not the way it would work out in practice. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) said that in practice the nuclear programme, for example, is considered in consultation by the Authority and the Minister. That is absolutely true. Consultation of that kind will go on between the Minister and the Council under the Bill as we propose it, but initiation of the plan will not come from the Minister but from the industry itself. I should have thought it was within the general conception of nationalised industry, both of hon. Gentlemen opposite and of ourselves, that the commercial initiative must rest with the boards. They have the statutory responsibility which we give them to provide electricity and to pay their way. Therefore it must rest with them initially to make up their minds on the sort of capital outlay in which they would like to engage.
As a matter of practice, I do not believe that the Minister is in a position to formulate and initiate plans of this kind. It is the function of the nationalised industry to decide what is needed and to put forward proposals for meeting the need. It is for the Minister, and for the Electricity Council advising the Minister, to say whether those plans seem suitable. To go further, as suggested in the Amendment, and to place responsibility on the Minister for formulating plans would put on the Minister a responsibility which no Government Department is equipped to carry out, and would take away from the industry the initiative which it should properly have.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fears of fragmentation and lack of co-ordination in the capital plans are covered in subsection (4) as drafted. It is because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment will give no greater co-ordination than our proposals, and will place upon the Minister a responsibility which he should not undertake, that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9.—(ANNUAL REPORTS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, after the first "Board", to insert "and".

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment were discussed with the three following Amendments on the Paper.

Mr. Renton: As you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, it would be convenient if these four Amendments were taken together. I can deal with them shortly. They are put forward in pursuance of an undertaking given to the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) by my right hon. Friend during Committee stage. The Amendments require the Electricity Council to include in its report to the Minister on the performance of its functions in the financial year a general review of the activities and progress during the year of the industry as a whole in England and Wales. That seems to be an obviously proper thing for it to do, bearing in mind such general responsibilities as it has under the Act. I hope that this Amendment will appeal to the House.

Mr. Palmer: We are grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Amendment. It is in line with the suggestion which we made in Standing Committee, and we are grateful for the accommodation made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 18, leave out "and the Electricity Council".

In line 24, at end insert:
(2) As soon as possible after copies of the reports of the Generating Board and all the Area Boards for any financial year have been received by the Electricity Council, the Council shall make to the Minister a report consisting of—

(a) a report on the performance by the Council of their functions during that year, and on the policy and programmes of the Council, and
(b) a general review of the activities and progress during that year of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales, taking that industry as a whole.

In line 25, leave out from "Every" to "the" in line 26 and insert:
report made under this section by an Area Board, the Generating Board or ".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 10.—(MACHINERY FOR SETTLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out "(a)".

Mr. Speaker: It appears to me that all the Amendments proposed to Clause 10 might be considered together.

Mr. Maudling: This Amendment follows some discussion that we had in Committee when it was represented to us by hon. Members opposite that the existing machinery for joint consultation should be continued and that joint consultation should continue on a national basis, and not be broken down to an area basis. As I said in Committee, I was very much impressed by the strength of the argument put forward by hon. Members opposite. In particular, the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) not only put forward a strong argument for retaining the present system, but was kind enough to offer us some advice in the matter in the drafting of Amendments. The Amendments now on the Notice Paper result from the consultations which have taken place with


the hon. and gallant Member and some trade union experts whom he was good enough to bring along to help us in this matter.
The first five Amendments proposed to this Clause, taken together, would mean that the same system of national arrangements would be continued for joint consultation as is to be continued under this Clause for negotiation on wages and similar matters. That, I understand, is exactly what the Opposition wish that we should do. The final Amendment proposed to the Clause is in a sense consequential. It is consequential, in a way, on the Amendment accepted in Committee that education and training should be specifically included in the matters covered by the joint consultative machinery.
Under the 1947 Act, as amended by the Bill, the boards will have a duty, in consultation with the appropriate trade unions, to establish the facilities for training and education. The effect of the new subsection (4) in the proposed Amendment in page 8, line 38, would be that in determining what are the appropriate trade unions for the purpose of that duty laid on the boards the boards shall have regard to the general consultative machinery which has been set up. I think that that is in a sense consequential, and we have had the benefit of very good advice in the framing of these Amendments. I think they are in line with the views expressed in Committee and I hope, therefore, that the House will accept them.

Mr. Palmer: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we had a very good debate in Committee on this matter. As we saw it, the defect in the Bill was that in relation to the joint consultation machinery the intention of the Bill as drafted was that it should be regionalised and not on a national basis. That, of course, was not the case in relation to wages and salaries, but it was so in regard to negotiations and that was a departure from the 1947 principle. The trade unions objected—I think quite properly—and very strongly, to the departure. Some of my hon. Friends and I expressed the trade union objections to the change when we spoke in Committee upstairs. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in

paying tribute to the influence which the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) had on the mind of the Committee.
10.0 p.m.
The necessary Amendment has been brought in and we are glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that this has been discussed with the unions. I have confirmed the trade unions' reactions, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. We are again grateful to him for the necessary change that he has made and I am certain that the trade unions will also be grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 13, after "for", insert "(a)".

In page 8, leave out lines 19 to 32, and insert:
(b) the promotion, improvement and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health, welfare, education and training of persons employed by the Electricity Council or by Electricity Boards, and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to that Council or those Boards and persons so employed, including efficiency in the operation of the services of the Council or the Boards.

In line 33, leave out "paragraph (a) of".

In line 38, leave out "paragraph (a) of".

In line 38, at end insert:
(4) In so far as the Generating Board or any Area Board are required by subsection (2) of section two of the principal Act to consult with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with respect to the performance of their duty under that subsection to provide, or assist the provision of, facilities for training and education, the Board, in determining what organisation is appropriate, shall have regard to any machinery established for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 12.—(TARIFFS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 9, line 25, at the end to insert:
(3) Where a consumer has requested an Area Board to enter into an agreement with him under subsection (7) of the said section thirty-seven (under which Area Boards are empowered to enter into special agreements with consumers), or to renew an agreement entered into under that subsection, or to vary the terms of such an agreement, and the Board—

(a) have refused to comply with that request, or


(b) have refused to comply with it except on terms which are not acceptable to the consumer,

the consumer may refer the matter to the Consultative Council established for the area of that Board.
(4) The grounds on which a consumer may refer a matter to a Consultative Council under the last preceding subsection are as follows, that is to say,—

(a) where the consumer's request to the Board to enter into or renew an agreement has been refused, that, owing to special circumstances, the tariffs in force in the area are not appropriate to him;
(b) where the consumer's request to the Board to vary the terms of an agreement have been refused, that, owing to a change of circumstances since the agreement was made, its terms have ceased to be reasonable;
(c) in any other case, that the terms proposed by the Board are unreasonable.

(5) Where a matter is referred to a Consultative Council under subsection (3) of this section, then, without prejudice to any functions of the Consultative Council or of the Electricity Council under section seven of the principal Act,—

(a) if it appears to the Consultative Council that the consumer has established to their satisfaction the grounds on which the matter was referred to them, the Council shall notify their conclusions to the consumer and to the Area Board;
(b) if it appears to the Consultative Council that the consumer has not so established those grounds, the Council shall notify their conclusions to the consumer;
(c) if the consumer is dissatisfied with the conclusions of the Consultative Council, or if (in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this subsection) he claims that the Area Board have failed to give effect to those conclusions, he may refer the matter to the Electricity Council, on the same grounds as those on which the matter was referred to the Consultative Council, subject to any modifications which may be appropriate in view of any subsequent proposal of the Area Board; and
(d) if it appears to the Electricity Council, after consultation with the Area Board and with the Consultative Council, that the consumer has established to the satisfaction of the Electricity Council the grounds on which the matter was referred to them, the Electricity Council may give to the Area Board such advice as they may consider appropriate in the circumstances.

(6) Any reference in this section to a refusal to comply with a request includes a reference to a failure to comply with it within a reasonable time after the request is made.
This is an addition to Clause 12. This Amendment is put forward in pursuance

of an undertaking given in Standing Committee after my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) had moved an Amendment, which he had drafted himself, and which would enable individual consumers to refer to the Electricity Council their disputes with area boards concerning special agreements under Section 37 (7) of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend was somewhat concerned because the relevant parts of Section 37 were to be repealed and the procedure which was laid down would therefore not be available any longer to the individual consumer. Therefore, something needed to be done about it and this Amendment is our suggested way of doing it.
It provides a formal procedure for consumers to make representations about their special agreements but it requires that, before going to the Electricity Council, a consumer shall first refer the matter to the consultative council for the area. This step we consider necessary because if a consumer to whom an area board refuses a special agreement or offers one on unacceptable terms has a right to go to the Electricity Council in the first instance, the Council may be concerned with too many ill-considered complaints with which it would be wrong to trouble it. Having put forward this procedure, we feel that justice will be done where it is necessary without too much fuss, and that the procedure should give satisfaction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
I think that we have made very good progress today. The next bunch of Amendments are all to be taken together and I think that it would be unwise at this stage to start a discussion on them. I think that the House will agree that it is important to finish the Bill tomorrow, both Report stage and Third Reading, and I cannot see from the look of the Order Paper that there should be any difficulty in doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

TRANSPORT (RIVER TYNE CROSSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.5 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: In drawing attention to this subject, I want to emphasise a point which everyone connected with the Tyne has tried to make—that the question whether a bridge or a tunnel shall be constructed is one of great importance to the North. At present, we scarcely know what the Minister is likely to do. Whatever is to be done, we want a definite decision as soon as possible.
In 1946, an important Private Act—the Tyne Tunnel Act—was passed which dealt with this matter. At that time there was no doubt whatever about what both the Government and the people in Northumberland and Durham wanted: unanimously, they wanted a tunnel. From 1946 half of that Act was implemented when a tunnel was operated for pedestrians and cyclists.
The question arises: what change has taken place since 1946? Have any buildings been erected since 1946 which would provide a reason for a change in the decision to build a tunnel? One can see no change whatever. If, in his present investigations, the Minister were to put the same question, "Which is the more desirable, a bridge or a tunnel?" he would get the answer which was given in 1946.
Every indication is that the answer he would receive from every professional man and everyone else in close touch with the situation, knowing the Tyne and its future possibilities, is the same answer as that which was given in 1946: that what people want and what is the most desirable and efficient method of transit, the best thing for the district, is a tunnel. If he puts the question in that form, "Which is the more desirable, a bridge or a tunnel?" the answer will be that the most efficient method is to bring a tunnel into operation.
What is the difficulty? Everything points to the fact that money alone is the difficulty. If the Government continue to say that they cannot afford the money

for a tunnel, we are faced with a serious problem in connection with transport and production in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland. What is the chief cry from the Government today? Is it that we should take second place in production and industry? No, the whole cry of the Government and of everyone interested in industry is to modernise our methods of production and not to accept a second-class article. They say, "When we are doing the job, let us do it to the best of our ability." Always, the cry is for the best. That being so, the question of money scarcely comes into it.
The Tyne tunnel is the transport key of Northumberland and Durham, but the attitude of the Government today is based on the fact that it will cost money. We are a bit hard up for money at the moment, it seems, although we will spend up to almost any amount in certain directions. When it comes to whether to have a bridge or a tunnel across the Tyne, the Government say that they want to save money, and to do so they will substitute for the tunnel something which everyone in the area admits is a second-rate article and will not do what the tunnel would.
Why are the Government meeting this problem in this particular way? Such a big operation as the building of either a bridge or a tunnel will be an expensive job, in any case. The Government ought to remember that what is to be done will last not for five to ten years, but for a hundred years or more. The Government should realise the importance of this project. We are dealing with the big question of transport in the North. If expenditure to the extent of £10 million or £12 million is the small and the big side of the problem, surely the Government will not, in spite of the unanimous public opinion in the district, and when experts and others declare that a tunnel is the real solution, refuse to build one. At a time when we are shouting continuously for everyone to put his best into industry and transport it is surprising to find that on this particular matter both the Minister and the Government seem to be blinding themselves to the actual needs of the district for the sake of saving, in the meantime, perhaps £6 million.
In such a matter as this, who would be the best people to consult? I think that it will be agreed that it would be best to consult those specialists who know


the intricacies and difficulties of such a problem, and know, also, the transport needs of the area. Surely the people who are connected with the Tyne know most about it. They know its past, present and future possibilities.
At this critical time in the North a decision must be made in the forthcoming months on this vital problem. The Tyne Commissioners have sent a letter to the Minister. There is no doubt about their attitude to this matter. They say without hesitation and without any ambiguity that there is no question about the practical solution of this problem. A sum of £60 million has been spent on the River Tyne. They say that the Tyne can be enlarged to accommodate bigger ships. They also say that the Tyne has the second largest port in the country and that the largest ships afloat can be built on the Tyne.
The Commissioners, as the guardians of the river, have told the Minister that in view of the future capacity of the river and the improvements that they intend to make the idea of building a bridge 173 ft. high is not practical. They say that a height of 173 ft. is not sufficient because ships with even higher masts will be using the river. They add that there is already a ship which needs a clearance of 190 ft. to enable it to pass through. Yet it is suggested that a bridge 173 ft. high should be built and that this height is sufficient to enable most ships to get through.
The Tyne Commissioners say they want to build bigger docks; that they want to maintain the reputation of this port as being the finest one for repairs; that this proposed bridge would be too near to the open sea and that all the shipping of any importance would need to pass it, so that to erect a bridge 173 ft. high in that locality would limit the future capacity of the Tyne. The Commissioners add that the only practical solution to this problem is to build a tunnel.
Wallsend, which I have the honour to represent, says the same as the Commissioners have said. Wallsend Council says the same thing as has been said by the Durham and Northumberland Joint Tyne Tunnel Committee, which has been set up to consider this problem. It has been expecting the implementation of the proposal for a tunnel for years. Land has been sold for the purpose and a large

amount of expense has been incurred with a view to building the tunnel in accordance with the idea which was initiated in 1946. This part of the work has been half done. The Act providing for the building of a tunnel is on the Statute Book.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: My hon. Friend keeps mentioning 1946, but is it not more correct to say that the Coalition Government, in 1944, decided, and the Government, in 1945 endorsed the decision, to erect a Tyne tunnel?

Mr. McKay: I think that that is quite true. The Tyne tunnel project was given great priority in the years that have gone since then, but now it is slipping down the priority list.
The Town Clerk of Wallsend tells me that a new dry dock is to be opened in Wallsend this month. He put the same kind of case before me as did the Tyne Commissioners, and he tells me, also, that one of the objections of Wallsend is that the council has only a small amount of land that can be used for building houses. A large area of land has been rendered sterile through mining, and now it is proposed to sterilise more by means of a bridge.
I therefore appeal to the Minister and his colleagues to give this matter serious consideraion, and not to allow the question of about £6 million to stand in the way of a great project for the benefit of transport in the north. I conclude by reading some of the remarks made by the Chairman of the Tyne Commissioners, which I think are emphatic enough to provide a good finish to what I have been trying to say: He said:
The Commissioners are concerned with accommodation to provide for any liner which may at any time come to the Tyne for repairs or survey, and for any modern liner which may be launched at any of the shipyards whose premises are westward of the site of the contemplated bridge between Jarrow and Howdon. I need not remind you of the firms whose premises are westward of the Jarrow/ Howdon site—they are all well-known to you. The Commissioners are concerned with the question purely as the navigation authority. It is their paramount duty to safeguard the rights of navigation. It is a duty which has had and will continue to have a considerable influence on the prosperity of Tyneside.
Expansion on the Tyne is not complete. In the reach of the river above the proposed site


of the bridge, there is room for further yards —there is room for dry docks greater in capacity than any existing dry dock in the United Kingdom today, and I have no doubt that a dry dock or even dry docks of that magnitude will be built on the River Tyne. It would be a tragic position if a bridge were to be built and the fulfilment of that desire removed.
It is not sufficient to contemplate the dry docking of even the biggest tankers nor of the biggest dry cargo ship. The Tyne must also be prepared to dry dock the largest liners and when the 1,000 ft. dry dock comes to the Tyne—as it will—both the liner and the tanker will come to make use of the accommodation. We must be very careful to see that we do not prejudice that usage.
I am sure you will all appreciate that a dry dock of such dimensions must be fully used to make it an economic proposition. It cannot afford to stand idle, and it must, therefore, deal with liners as well as tankers. The shipbuilders and ship repairers on the Tyne have spent vast sums of money, and the cost of a new mammoth dry dock may fall not far short of the difference between a bridge and a tunnel.
In other words, the Commissioners are prepared to spend millions of pounds upon this, and they appeal to the Minister to see that the tunnel is constructed.

10.24 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I intervene only for a few moments, because I realise that the important thing is to have a reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to make two observations. One is that, personally, I am prepared to stand by the decision of the experts, but I only hope that their decision will not be too long delayed. Secondly, I want to emphasise the fact that a new form of communication between the north and the south of the Tyne is absolutely essential. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that the delay which has been initiated by him will not lose us our priority.
If the experts come down against the bridge and in favour of a tunnel, then I hope that the pledges which have been given to the Tyne will be implemented. I have noticed with very great interest that Dartford has got its tunnel, and that it is costing about £15 million. I am very glad to see my hon. Friend the new hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) sitting in the House listening to this debate, because we take a great interest in the future of our

county communications. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that if, in view of the passage of ships up and down the River Tyne, a bridge is not recommended, the pledges will be implemented and we shall get our communications. My local authority has built up a very large trading estate, and has partly got that trading estate on the understanding that there will be these new communications between north and south of the river.

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I can assure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) that my right hon. Friend and I in no way under-estimate the importance of this matter. We are fully aware of the great importance of the industry of Tyneside, especially the shipbuilding industry, to the life of this country. We shall do nothing which will interfere with that in the final solution of this matter, vital for the North-East of England, of the Newcastle Tyne crossing.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that there is no delay which my right hon. Friends or I have initiated in the discussion of the alternatives of bridge or tunnel. The date for starting this crossing has not yet been fixed. All that has been undertaken by my right hon. Friends in the past is that there shall be a crossing, and, when the tunnel alone was being discussed, it was to be given priority following the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman's observation is most interesting. Is he aware that, on 5th May, 1954, the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the then Minister, said:
 I fully recognise the importance of this project, and it is my present intention, subject to any unforeseen development, that the Tyne Tunnel should be the next tunnel to be approved in the road programme after the Dartford-Purflect Tunnel ".
He gave a pledge for a tunnel on that date. He went on, in reply to supplementary questions, to say:
 I hope the fact that the Tyne Tunnel now ranks as the next major project after the Dartford Tunnel, subject to what I have said, will bring some measure of comfort to the North-East ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 357]


That was the declaration of the then Minister, that the tunnel project was going ahead. Does the Minister now require further consideration, in view of his predecessor's declaration? He is surely going to honour that promise now, is he not?

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Gentleman's intervention, which has lengthened into a speech, unfortunately for his hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend, because it will prevent him from getting a full reply, merely confirms what I have said, namely, that an undertaking has been given that this would be the next scheme after the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel—

Mr. Popplewell: A tunnel, not a crossing.

Mr. Nugent: —and since then my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), following his visit to the neighbourhood in 1955, discussed the question of whether a bridge would be a suitable alternative. More recently. my right hon. Friend and I saw a deputation from the Tyne Tunnel Committee on 1st February. The members of the deputation expressed their predominant wish for a crossing as soon as possible, much on the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has just mentioned. Although preferring a tunnel, they were willing to consider a bridge if that would improve the prospect of their getting their crossing. Their consulting engineer told us then that a bridge was possible with headroom of 173 ft., as the hon. Member for Wallsend has mentioned.
At that meeting, there were also present representatives of the Jarrow Borough Council, who told us that they roundly opposed the bridge and that the approach arches would seriously interfere with the amenity of the town. The Wallsend Borough Council, from the hon. Member's constituency, whilst preferring the tunnel, was willing to consider the bridge if issues of cost made it, in the Minister's view, essential that that should be considered.
Since that meeting, we have been consulting the shipping interests and the Admiralty. These consultations are incomplete. The Tyne Improvement Commission, as the hon. Member for Wallsend has rightly recorded, is strongly opposed to the bridge and has said so,

and continues to say so, on the ground that it might interfere with future needs of shipping, either in building or repairing it, even though the headroom of 173 ft. might be adequate at present.
The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association has just let us know that although it objected when the headroom was to be 150 ft., it has no objection now that the project has 173 ft. headroom. The Chamber of Shipping, whilst preferring 173 ft. to 150 ft., is at present non-committal. The summary of the shipping considerations, therefore, is at present inconclusive. I assure the hon. Member that no decision will be taken until we have the whole picture before us and my right hon. Friend can take a decision in the light of it.
From the viewpoint of road transport considerations, I must tell the hon. Member that he would not in any way be getting the second best with the bridge. The road transport considerations are conclusively favourable to the bridge. The bridge with 173 feet headroom and with dual carriageways would cost £6¼ million. There would be slightly sub-standard gradients but there would be dual carriageways which would carry a great volume of traffic.
The tunnel that we are now considering —the hon. Member referred to its cost as £l1 million, but about £12 million is probably the correct figure—would have only two single tracks. In order to have the equivalent road transport capacity of the bridge, it would be necessary to have two tunnels, which would cost well over £20 million. So that even on the basis of the reduced transport capacity of the single tunnel, the cost is nearly double that of the bridge project, and to get the equivalent road transport capacity would cost three or four times as much.
These financial differences are really very substantial, and I am quite certain that the hon. Member would not expect my right hon. Friend and myself to ignore them, any more than he would do so himself. In either case, there will be tolls.
Finally, of course, there is the amenity consideration, which is very weighty. My right hon. Friend and I fully accept its importance, both for Jarrow and for Wallsend. My right hon. Friend will in any event visit Tyneside to see for himself how the bridge project would work out


before a decision is taken. It is my intention also to go there in the course of the next few months so that I may also have the benefit of first-hand experience of the problems.
Tonight, therefore, I cannot say what will be the final solution, but I do have to say this. If shipping considerations make it impossible for the bridge to be built and we must rely upon the building of a tunnel, the greater financial cost is

bound to handicap to some extent the date of starting of the actual crossing that we all so earnestly wish to have there. It still retains its place—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.